HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA C.R.P.Nos.2198, 2199 & 2200 of 2025

COMMON ORDER:

The present Civil Revision Petitions are filed by the petitioner/plaintiff against the orders dated 30.04.2025 in I.A.Nos.206, 207 & 208 of 2025 in O.S.No.19 of 2015 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Darsi dismissing the applications viz., I.A.No.206 of 2025 is filed under Section 151 of C.P.C with a prayer to reopen the evidence on behalf of petitioner/plaintiff; I.A.No.207 of 2025 is filed under Order 16 Rule 4 r/w 151 of CPC with a prayer to summon the Sub-Registrar, Darsi for cause production of specimen signature/thumb impression book for the year 1979 relating to the registered sale deed dated 30.03.1979 vide document No.299/1979 and I.A.No.208 of 2025 is filed under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act with a prayer to send Ex.B1 unregistered Will deed dated 02.04.2009 to the handwriting expert at Forensic Science Laboratory, Mangalagiri for comparison of the thumb impression of the executants thereon with his admitted thumb impression and for report, in the interest of justice.

2. Since the petitioners and respondent are one and the same in the present three Civil Revision Petitions and arisen out of a suit O.S.No.19 of 2015 and also issues involved in these revision petitions are all identical, therefore this Court is inclined to pass a common order. Petitioner herein is plaintiff and respondents herein are defendants in the suit. For convenience of the Court the parties arrayed at Court below would be referred in this petition.

3. The case of the petitioner is that he filed suit O.S.No.19 of 2015 seeking partition that plaint schedule properties to be divided into five equal shares according to the fertility and utility of the soil and directing the defendants to deliver the possession of one of such contiguous shares to the plaintiff within the time fixed by the Hon’ble Court and in default the same may be done through the process of the Court by passing a preliminary and final decrees and to grant future mense profits. While so, cross- examination of all the defendants’ side witnesses were already done. It is the contention of defendants that by virtue of Ex.B1 unregistered Will dated 02.04.2009 item No.4 of the suit schedule property and other properties are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the 2^nd defendant. The learned counsel for the plaintiff argues that the plaintiff want to send the Ex.B1 unregistered Will dated 02.04.2009 to the expert opinion by calling the thumb impression available in the thumb register at Sub-Registrar Office at Darsi, Unless these petitions are allowed, the genuineness of the Ex.B1 will not be proved. As such Court below committed illegality in dismissing these petitions. He further argued that it is a settled legal position that when there is a dispute regarding a document by one party to the suit, the Court cannot act as an expert to take cordinal comparison without there being expert opinion and further there is no time limit for the petitions filed under Order 16 Rule 4 and petition under Section

45 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

4. As can be seen from the impugned orders, the trial Court has rightly observed that after due commencement of trial and after adducing evidence by the petitioner as well as the respondents, the matter was posted for arguments. At that stage as a surprise the petitioner has come up with these petitions i.e., I.A.Nos.206, 207 & 208 of 2025 in order to reopen the trial and also to send the Ex.B.1 unregistered Will for F.S.L and to cause production of thumb impression book for the year 1979 as stated in the petition from the Sub-Registrar of Darsi. It is further observed by the trial Court that the petitioner did not adduce any substantial evidence about the availability of the thumb impression register relating to the year 1979 in the office of Sub- Registrar Office, Darsi. It is also further observed by the Trial Court that filing these applications and cau