ORDER :

The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of constitution of India against the order dated 10.10.2022 dismissing the petition in I.A.No.718 of 2020 in O.S.No.26 of 2015 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge's Court, Chilakaluripet, filed by the defendants under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act to send Ex.A1 agreement of sale dated 04.04.1991 and Ex.A9 endorsement thereon dated 22.09.1992 to a handwriting expert, A.P.F.S.L, Mangalagiri, Andhra Pradesh for its comparison and opinion along with admitted signature of the petitioners/defendants.

2. Heard Sri.K.Ramakoteswara Rao, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri.A.Venkata Durga Rao, learned counsel for respondents.

3. The 1st respondent filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 04.04.1991. After his death, the respondents No.2 to 8 were added as his legal representatives. Thus, all the respondents are the plaintiffs. The suit was resisted by the revision petitioners /petitioners/defendants. Originally the 2nd petitioner filed written statement denying all the averments in the plaint and further pleading that the 2nd defendant is the absolute owner of plaint schedule property being a bonafide purchaser having purchased the same from the 1st defendant for a valid consideration under registered document bearing No.2383/2013 dated 13.12.2013 and took possession of the same on the same date. It is further pleaded that the suit is brought into existence by the plaintiff in collusion with the 1st defendant only with an intention to blackmail the 2nd defendant. The said written statement was adopted by D.1.

4. In that backdrop, when the defendants filed petition under section 45 of Indian Evidence Act with the above said prayer in I.A.No.718 of 2020, the petition was resisted by the respondents/plaintiffs. The trial Court dismissed the petition after hearing both parties and specifically observing that D1 admitted execution of Ex.A1 and there is no dispute regarding the identity of his signature in the document and further that D1 adopted the written statement of D2 by filing memo dated

19.12.2019.

5. Having been aggrieved by the order, this revision is filed. Pending revision petition, the 1st defendant filed I.A.No.362 of 2023 to receive separate written statement of D1 and the same was allowed on merits on 10.07.2023. By filing additional written statement he stated that as per agreement of sale dated 04.04.1991 the balance of sale consideration amount is to be paid on or before January, 1992 and get registration of the sale deed. In case of failure to pay the balance amount, this agreement will be cancelled. The plaintiff, to get the plaint schedule property, fabricated the part payment endorsement dated 22.09.1992 by forging the signature of D1.

6. Therefore, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that in view of specific plea taken denying the execution of endorsement under Ex.A9 as forged, it is necessary to send the same to a hand writing expert to compare the same with the signature of D1 on Ex.A1.

7. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the plea is taken subsequent to filing of the revision petition and since the revision is only against the order already passed based on the pleadings before the trial Court as by then were available, by exercising the supervisory jurisdiction under Section 227 of Constitution of India, this Court cannot now interfere with the order impugned in the revision. In this regard, he placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. India Pipe Fitting Company v.

Fakruddin M.A Baker and another1 wherein it is held as follows:

“5. The limitation of the High Court while exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution is well-settled. Power under Article 227 is one of judicial superintendence and cannot be exercised to upset conclusions of facts however erroneous those may be. It is well-settled and perhaps too late in the day to refer to the decisi