Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : 10.07.2026 Date of uploading : APHC010593572025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] FRIDAY, THE 10th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3010/2025 Between: 1. KANDULA VENKATESWARLU (DIED), S/O. ATCHAIAH, HINDU, BUSINESS, R/O. SNP AGRAHARAM, BAPATLA TOWN. 2. 2. KANDULA MANGAMMA, (DIED) W/O. ATCHAIAH, HINDU, HOUSEWIFE, R/O. PEDDAGOLLAPALEM VILLAGE, KARLAPALEM MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT. 3. 3. KESANI NAGENDRAMMA CHITTEMMA,, W/O SATYANARAYANA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/O. JAMEDARPET, BAPATIA TOWN, BAPATIA DISTRICT. 4 4. KANDULA SIVA NAGARAJU, . (DIED) S/O. LATE VENKATESWARLU, HINDU, BUSINESS, R/O. SNP AGRAHARAM, BAPATIA TOWN, BAPATIA DISTRICT. 5. 5. KANDULA MOHAN BABU,, S/O. LATE VENKATESWARLU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. BUSINESS, R/O. SNP AGRAHARAM, BAPATLA TOWN, BAPATLA DISTRICT. 6. 6. KANDULA JHANSI,, W/O DASARI CHANDRASEKHAR, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS. HOUSE WIFE, R/O RESIDENTIAL QUARTERS, INDIAN AIR FORCE, SURYALANKA, BAPATLA. Page 2 of 5 7. KANDULA PRASADAMMA,, W/O. LATE VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O. SNP AGRAHARAM, BAPATIA TOWN, BAPATIA DISTRICT. 8. KANDULA MANIKYAMMA,, W/O. LATE SIVA NAGARAJU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS. PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O. PREM NAGAR, BAPATIA, BAPATIA DISTRICT 9. KANDULA SRAVANI,, D/O. LATE SIVA NAGARAJU, HINDU, AGED 22 YEARS, R/O DOOR NO. 5-2-12/1, NEAR SAI BABA TEMPLE,PREM NAGAR, 10TH WARD, BAPATIA, BAPATIA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. SHAIK MOULALI, S/o Mohammed Ali, Muslim, Aged about 47 years. Real Estate Business, R/o Vengalapalem Village, Nallapadu Post, Guntur Rural Mandal, Guntur District. ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased toThe above named Petitioners begs to present this Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition against the Order and Decree dated 24-10-2025 in I.A. No. 388 of 2025 in O.S. No. 108 of 2016, on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), at Bapatla, for the following grounds among other IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to stay all further proceedings in OS No. 108 of 2016 pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), at Bapatia pending disposal of the CRP and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. G JHANSI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. SARANU PHANI TEJA The Court made the following: ORDER Heard Smt. G. Jhansi, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri S. Phani Teja, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The above civil revision petition (hereinafter referred to as ‘revision’) was filed assailing the order, dated 24.10.2025, in I.A.No.388 of 2025 in O.S.No.108 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bapatla. 3. The respondent herein, being the plaintiff, instituted O.S.No.108 of 2016 against the revision petitioners, being the defendants, seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale or, in the alternative, refund of an amount of Rs.11,12,375/- with future interest at 18% per annum. 4. The defendants filed a written statement and denied the execution of the agreement of sale and the signatures as well as the thumb impression of defendant No.2 appearing on it. 5. Pending the suit, the defendants file I.A.No.388 of 2025 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘C.P.C.’), to send agreement of sale, dated 19.07.1999 to the Finger Prints Bureau, Andhra Pradesh Police Headquarters, Mangalagiri, Guntur District for comparison of the disputed thumb impression of defendant No.2 on the suit agreement of sale with her admitted thumb impression. 6. Plaintiff filed a counter and opposed the application. 7. The trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the defendants failed to place any document containing the admitted thumb impression of defendant No.2, before the Court, against which the present revision is filed. 8. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the deceased defendant No.2 along with others executed a registered sale deed dated 30.01.2002 in favour of one P. Bhaskar Rao, S/o P. Subba Rao. A certified copy of which was marked as Ex.B2 in the suit. Further submitted that the defendants will make an application to cause production of a document containing the thumb impression of defendant No.2 from SRO, Bapatla, to compare with the disputed thumb impression appearing on the agreement of sale. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, would submit that the suit was filed in the year 2016 and the defendants, for one or the other reason, have been dragging the suit proceedings. 10. Admittedly, along with the I.A. filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, no authentic document that contains the thumb impression of the D2, was filed. Considering those circumstances, the learned trial court dismissed the application by recording the reason that the defendants failed to produce the document containing the admitted thumb impression of defendant No.2. 11. This Court, of course, does not find fault with the order passed by the learned trial court. However, considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that certified copy of sale deed, dated 30.01.2002 executed by defendant No.2 along with others in favour of one P. Bhaskar Rao, is already marked as Ex.B2 and that steps will be taken steps to get the document containing the thumb impression of defendant No.2 from the SRO Bapatla, to give one more opportunity, since the science of identification of thumb impression is an exact science, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the order under revision. Procedure is the handmaid of justice, and technicalities must not be allowed to infringe upon the substantive rights of the parties. In similar circumstances, a learned single judge of this Court allowed the C.R.P. and granted time to the parties to file an application in the Lower Court. See P.M.Tejaswini Vs Gali Mohana Ramanaidu1 12. Accordingly, this revision is allowed. The order dated 24.10.2025 in I.A.No.388 of 2025 is hereby set aside, and the said interlocutory application is restored to file. The revision petitioners/defendants shall file an application immediately before the trial Court for summoning the document containing the thumb impression of defendant No.2, from the office of SRO Bapatla, immediately. If such an I.A. is filed, the learned trial court shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders. If the defendants fail to file the application within a reasonable time i.e. within two weeks from today, the order, dated 24.10.2025 in I.A.No.388 of 2025 in O.S.No.108 of 2016, stands revived without reference to any further order. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 10.07.2026 IKN Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 1 2024 Scc Online (AP) 84