APHC010070572023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3332]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 345/2023 Between:

1. S INGAMPALLI PARAVATHI, W/O VENKATARAMANA, AGED 53 YEARS, LANDLORD, D. NO. 4-90, NADAKUDURU VILLAGE, KARAPA MANDAL ...PETITIONER AND

1. P EDAPUDI YERINAMMA, S/O TATALU, AGED 48 YEARS, BUSINESS, D.NO. 3-47 (1) BAPIRAJU, KOTHAPALLE (V), KOTAVURATLA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM.

2. P ETLA RAMBABU, S/O BENNAYYANAIDU, AGE 55 YEARS, D.NO. 2-19 (1) BAPIRAJU, KOTHAPALLE (V), KOTAVURATLA MANDAI, VISAKHAPATNAM

3. S INGAMPALLI VENKATARAMANA, S/O LATE VANUMULU, AGE

59 YEARS, BUSINESS, D. NO. 4-90 (1) BAPIRAJU, KOTHAPALLE (V), KOTAVURATLA MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM.

...RESPONDENT(S):

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 revise and set aside the order dated. 14.11.2022 (14th day November, 2022) in I.A. No. 837 of 2022 in OS. No. 45 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge Court, at Kakinada, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 STAY all further proceedings in OS. No. 45 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge Court, at Kakinada, until the pending of the present Civil Revision Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. P RAJASEKHAR Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

Assailing the correctness and legality of the orders dated

14.11.2022 passed in I.A.No.837 of 2022 in O.S.No.45 of 2022 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

2. The petitioner is the defendant No.1, respondent Nos.1 & 2 are the plaintiffs and respondent No.3 is the co-defendant No.2.

3. Respondent Nos.1 & 2 herein got filed a suit in O.S.No.45 of 2022 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, for recovery of money basing on a promissory note.

4. In the said suit, Defendant No.1 filed I.A.No.837 of 2022 under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act, Section 94(e) and Section 151 of CPC duly praying the Court below to send the disputed suit promissory note dated 15.03.2020 to an expert to ascertain age of the ink in the signature of the petitioner, recitals in the suit promissory note to NUTRON ACTIVATION ANALYSIS, BARC, Mumbai. The said application has been opposed by the respondents plaintiffs and prayed to dismiss the I.A. After hearing the parties, the Court below dismissed the said I.A. Aggrieved by the said order, the present CRP came to be filed.

5. Heard Sri K.Sanjay, learned counsel representing Sri P.Raja Sekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Despite service of notice, none appeared for the respondents.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the affidavit before the trial Court and the grounds of revision submitted that basing on a forged promissory note, Respondent Nos.1 & 2 herein filed suit for recovery of money. The petitioner herein, who is defendant No.1 therein categorically taken a stand in the written statement that the suit promissory note is a rank forgery. To find out the age of the ink of the signature and recitals of the promissory note, the subject application has been filed duly praying the Court to send the said document to the department called NUTRON ACTIVATIION ANALYSIS, BARC, Mumbai, as they are having technology and expertise in identifying the age of the ink so that the true picture of the suit promissory note will come into light and it would be an aid to the Court below to decide the suit. The said application has been dismissed erroneously by the Court below on the ground that the suit promissory note on the petitioner’s separate petition has been sent to the expert for c