APHC010127852025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3333]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 771/2025 Between:

Kakumani Ranganayakamma ...PETITIONER AND Chennupati Venugopal ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. AYESHA AZMA S Counsel for the Respondent:

NIL The Court made the following ORDER:

The revision petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.14 of 2024, filed the present revision petition challenging the order dated 14.02.2025, passed in I.A.No.569 of 2024 in O.S.No.14 of 2024 on the file of the Family Court-cum- VIII Additional District Judge at Ongole, whereby the trial Court dismissed the said I.A. filed by the petitioner herein to send the disputed signatures on the sale agreement dated 04.09.2023 along with admitted signatures of the petitioner obtained in open Court to hand writing expert.

2. The petitioner is being represented by the Special General Power of Attorney holder, which is executed on 24.03.2024.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent herein filed O.S.No.14 of 2024 as against the petitioner herein seeking specific performance of agreement of sale executed on 04.09.2023, in which the petitioner herein filed a written statement denying her signatures on the alleged agreement of sale. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A.No.569 of 2024 under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act and Section 151 C.P.C. for sending the disputed signatures to an expert opinion to compare the disputed signatures with admitted signatures and to give opinion about the signatures on the agreement of sale dated 04.09.2023.

4. The said application was rejected by the Court below observing as follows:

“More over at present the suit is at the stage of framing of issues. At this stage it cannot be expected whether any issue relating to the forgery would be framed putting the burden of proof on the petitioner. However initial burden of proof would be always on the plaintiff to prove his case, here in this case the due execution of disputed agreement of sale by the executant. At the initial stage itself the court cannot seek the assistance of hand writing expert leaving the initial basic procedure of conducting trial for collection of all possible positive ocular and documentary evidence from both the parties. In the absence of evidence of petitioner and respondent it cannot be determined/concluded by the court whether opinion of hand writing expert is necessary in this case or not. It is needless to say that report of hand writing expert is just an opinion, but not a substantial piece of evidence. Opinion of expert cannot be look into without corroboration. Here initial evidence of parties are not available. It is very premature to determine this aspect at this stage. In view of the above reasons this court is not inclined to allow the present application.

Accordingly the point is answered against the petitioner”

5. Challenging the above order, this revision petition is filed.

6. As the respondent is avoiding to receive notice, this Court, on 01.08.2025, passed interim stay as prayed for by the petitioner, for a period of (4) weeks. Thereafter the said interim order has been extended from time to time.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

8. Even though notices were sent to the respondent several times to the address as mentioned before the Court below, no representation was made for the respondent.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the grounds raised before the Court below in I.A.No.569 of 2024 and argued that the plaintiff has filed the suit seeking specific performance of agreement of sale deed dated 04.09.2023, in which her signatures were forged and she has also filed written statement duly alleging that the signatures on the alleged agreement of sale are fabricated and do not belong to her. As the signatures on the agreement of sale dated 04.09.202