COMMON ORDER:

These two revisions are preferred against the orders, dated

05.12.2022, dismissing I.A.Nos.426 of 2016 and 319 of 2022 in O.S.No.77 of 2013 on the file of the Court of X Additional District Judge, Krishna, at Machilipatnam, which are filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 by the petitioners/defendants to send exhibit A1 agreement of sale, dated 19.08.2008, to the handwriting expert for the purpose of comparison of signatures in the agreement with the admitted signatures of the petitioners, and under order XVI Rule 6 CPC to issue summons to the Superintendent, I Additional District Judge Court, Krishna, at Machlipatnam for causing production of memo of appearance/ vakalat of petitioner No.1 who is the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.117 of 2008 and original Lok Adalat award copy, dated 02.12.2009, in the said criminal appeal in order to send these documents to the government handwriting expert for comparison respectively.

2. C.R.P.No.2640 of 2022 is preferred against the order passed in I.A.No.426 of 2016 whereas C.R.P.No.2677 of 2022 is preferred against the orders passed in I.A.No.319 of 2022.

3. Heard Sri Sunkara Rajendra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants and Sri M.R.S.Srinivas, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs.

4. The facts which are necessary for disposal of these revisions, briefly stated, are as follows:

The plaintiffs filed the suit seeking specific performance of suit agreement of sale against the defendants. After completion of evidence of the plaintiffs, the defendants examined DWs 1 to 8 and the matter is coming up for further evidence. The suit agreement of sale and payment endorsement on the back side of the agreement of sale contain telugu signatures of the executants. Whereas the defendants subscribed their signatures in English language in five vakalats, in the written statements and also in the affidavit. The petitioners/defendants contend that the suit agreement, exhibit A1 is rank forgery and that they never executed any agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiffs at any point of time. Hence, they filed petition in I.A.No.426 of 2016 for sending the agreement of sale to handwriting expert for comparison of the signatures. Petitioner/ defendant No.1 is appellant in Criminal Appeal No.117 of 2008 in which he filed memo of appearance and Lok Adalat award passed on 02.12.2009 in the criminal appeal before the Lok Adalat Bench. Therefore, I.A.No.319 of 2022 is filed to call for the memo of appearance and original Lok adalat award, dated 02.12.2009 in criminal appeal No.117 of 2008 on the file of the Court of I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Krishna, at Machilipatnam and to issue summons for the said purpose.

5. The respondents/plaintiffs filed counter denying the averments in the petitions and contending that the averments in the petitions are contrary to the pleadings and evidence and the petitions are not maintainable and are liable to be dismissed.

6. After hearing both parties, the trial Court dismissed both the petitions, by separate orders, which are impugned in these revisions, holding that without filing the undisputed signatures of the petitioners in telugu language for the contemporary period, the request cannot be considered. Further, when the proposed documents, i.e., memo of appearance and Lok Adalat award in Criminal Appeal No.117 of 2008 do not contain the signature of the petitioner No.2/defendant No.2 summoning those documents are not helpful to the Court.

7. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners/defendants preferred these two revisions.

C.R.P.No.2640 of 2022:

8. The petitioners asked for opinion of an expert about the signatures of the defendant on the suit agreement of sale marked as exhibit A1. It contained the signatures of both the defendants. Apart from the signatures on the agreement, there are also endorsements on the backside of the 1st sheet of paper of the agreement and it contained the signatures of both the defendants as