* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

+ CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 343/2025

% .05.2025

# Matta Padma & 2 others.

……Petitioners

And:

$ Matta Venkata Rattaiah & 9 others

….Respondents

!Counsel for the petitioners : Sri Siva Prasad Reddy Venati

^Counsel for the respondent :

>Head Note:

? Cases referred: 1. AIR 1964 SC 529 2. AIR 1959 SC 443 3. AIR 1962 SC 567 4. (1973) 2 SCC 86

5. (2006) 13 SCC 65 6. (2012) 8 SCC 263

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI * * * *

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 343/2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: .05.2025 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No may be allowed to see the Judgments?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No marked to Law Reporters/Journals

3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair Yes/No copy of the Judgment?

____________________

RAVI NATH TILHARI,J THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 343/2025

ORDER:

Heard Sri Siva Prasad Reddy Venati, learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners who are defendant Nos.6 to 8 in O.S.No.364 of 2010 pending in the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Machilipatnam, Krishna District filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein.

3. The said suit was filed for partition of the plaint schedule properties against the defendants/respondent Nos.2 to 10 and present petitioners.

4. In the said suit, the defendant Nos.5, 6 to 8 took a plea that the owner of the property executed Wills in their favour with regard to the plaint schedule property. Defendant Nos.5, 6 to 8 produced two different Wills said to be executed by Matta Suryanarayana with respect to the plaint schedule property and they were marked as Ex.B2 & B7 respectively.

5. The plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein filed I.A.No.858 of 2024, inter-alia submitting that Matta Suryanarayana never executed any Will. He requested to get the signature of the alleged Wills compared with the admitted signatures of Matta Suryanarayana and prayed to send the alleged signatures on the Wills Ex.B2 and B7 to compare with the admitted signatures to the expert.

6. The present petitioners along with defendant Nos.2, 10 to 12 objected I.A.No.858 of 2024 and they filed the counters. The petitioners submitted that the Will could not be sent for comparison and requested to dismiss the petition. They also filed a memo along with the judgments on which they placed reliance before the learned Trial Court.

7. The defendant Nos.3 and 9 were set ex-parte.

8. Learned Trial Court framed the following point for consideration:

“Whether the petitioner is entitled to seek the Court to send the Wills Ex.B2 and B7 allegedly executed by Matta Suryanarayana for comparison by the handwriting expert with the admitted signature of Matta Suryanarayana?”

9. On consideration of the judgments on which reliance was placed, learned Trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was disputing the genuineness of both the Wills, as also signature thereon and as based on those Wills Ex.B2 & B7, the defendants were claiming the property and deciding the claim of the plaintiff, so, there being a serious dispute, it was safe to take the assistance of the handwriting expert instead of the Court itself examining the signature. Being of such an opinion it recorded that the signature of Matta Suryanarayana required examination by the expert, I.A was allowed. The petitioner therein i.e., plaintiff/respondent No.1 was directed to file other admitted and contemporaneous signatures and hand writing of Matta Suryanarayana, if any, to send to the expert for examination with the disputed signature of Ex.B2 & B7.

10. Challenging the said order dated 22.01.2025, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the defendant Nos.6 to 8.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned Court ought not to have allowed I.A.No.858 of