APHC010263112024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3332]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1267/2024 Between:

1. P. JAYAMMA REDDY,, W/O MOPA REDDY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT

80 YEARS, R/O PLOT NO. 326, 8TH BLOCK, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE.

...PETITIONER AND

1. V NARASIMHA REDDY, S/o. Papi Reddy, Aged about 63 Years, Hindu, R/o Satya Sai Apartments, Raghavendra Nagar, Kallur, Kurnool District ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to allow the Revision Petition, set aside the Order in I.A.No.12 of 2024 in O.S.No.106 of 2017 dated 08.05.2024, passed by the Learned Family cum IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool, allow I.A.No.12 of 2024 in O.S.No.106 of 2017 on the file of the Learned Family cum IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S No. 106 of 2017 on the file of Hon’ble Family cum IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. BUGULU SREETEJA Counsel for the Respondent:

1. G SRAVAN KUMAR The Court made the following order:

Questioning the legality and correctness of the order dated 08.05.2024 passed in Interlocutory Application No.12 of 2024 in Original Suit No.106 of 2017 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Additional District &

Sessions Judge, Kurnool, the present Civil Revision petition is filed.

2. The petitioner herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.106 of 2017 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

3. The respondent herein/plaintiff filed O.S.No.106 of 2017 seeking recovery of the suit amount based on a promissory note. The petitioner/defendant filed written statement denying the borrowing of the amount. Subsequently, the petitioner/defendant filed I.A.No.12 of 2024 under Order XXVI Rule 10 (a) C.P.C read with Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking to send the Ex.A1-suit promissory note along with Ex.B1-sale deed dated 13.10.2017 and her Passport and PAN Card to the Director, Forensic Sciences, Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad, Telangana for comparison of her signatures and for expert opinion.

(ii) The respondent/plaintiff filed counter opposing the said application contending that the defendant, who was examined as D.W.1, had denied the signature in written statement and vakalat, which clearly goes to show that there is no written statement on behalf of defendant. When there is no denial of plaint pleadings, there is no need of third party opinion. Hence, prayed to dismiss the application.

(iii) The Court below, vide order dated 08.05.2024, dismissed the application on the ground that the documents relied by the petitioner for comparison were not suitable for examination by the expert and except those documents, no other admitted signatures were produced by the petitioner for the purpose of comparison, hence, sending Ex.A1 for comparison would serve no useful purpose, hence, no useful purpose would be served. Assailing the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

4. Heard Sri Patil Yugandhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the grounds of revision and contents of the affidavit filed in support of Interlocutory Application filed before the Court below, contended that the petitioner did not borrow any amount from the respondent/plaintiff and the res