APHC010510542023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3332]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

PRESENT:THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2612/2023 Between:

1. SRI NAGULLABHARGAV KUMAR, S/O. KOTESWARA RAO, AGED 40 YEARS,OCC PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O BOMMULURU VILLAGE,GUDIVADA MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND

1. SMT SURABATTULA VENKATALAKSHMI, W/o. Ravi Kumar, Aged 36 years, Occ.Business, R/o 6/253, Peddavedlil Gudivada Town, Krishna 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 tobegs to present this Memorandum. of Civil Revision( Petition against the order passed in I.A.NO.1285/2022 in 0.S.No49/2021 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudivada, Krishna District 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 pleased to Stay of all further proceedings in O.S No.49/2021 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudivada, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. B S VENKATA RAMESH Counsel for the Respondent:

1. O UDAYA KUMAR RESERVED ON 16.02.2026 PRONOUNCED ON 26.02.2026 UPLOADED ON 02.03.2026 ORDER This Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the legality and correctness of the orders dated 14.08.2023 passed in I.A.No.1285 of 2022 in O.S.No.49/2021 by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudivada.

2. The Revisionist is the petitioner/ defendant whereas the respondent is the respondent/plaintiff in I.A.No.1285 of 2022 in O.S.No.49/2021.

3. The facts that led to filing of the Civil Revision Petition, in brief, are as follows:

In the suit filed by the respondent vide O.S.No.49 of 2021, the revision petitioner who was defendant in the said suit filed the petition vide I.A.No.1285 of 2022 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to send the agreement of sale dated 15.02.2018 to handwriting expert for the purpose of comparing the signatures in the first page and second page of the said agreement of sale with the signatures on the vakalat, written statement and registered sale deed dated 15.06.2012.

The respondent by filing counter reported no objection for sending the agreement of sale to handwriting expert for comparison with the authenticated signatures of the petitioner of the relevant period.

(ii) The learned trial Judge upon considering the material available on record and the submissions made by both the learned counsel, dismissed the petition, holding that vakalat and written statement cannot said to be the authenticated comparing material and the registered sale deed dated 15.06.2012 cannot be said to be a document of contemporaneous period, since disputed signature is dated 15.02.2018.

(iii) The said dismissal order is assailed in this Civil Revision Petition.

4. Heard Sri B.S.Venkata Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri O.Udaya Kumar, learned counsel for respondent.

5. Sri B.S.Venkata Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the petition before trial Court and grounds of revision, would contend that production of documents of the contemporaneous period cannot be a ground to reject the claim made by the petitioner for sending the document to handwriting expert. He would further contend that the signature found on the first page of the agreement of sale differs with that of the signature found on its second page and unless the document is sent for comparison of the signatures found on first and second page, the petitioner would be deprived of the fundamental right of effectively defending his case. He would further contend that the order impugned is perverse and the same is liable to be set aside.

Accordingly, prayed to allow the revision.

6. On the other hand, Sri O.U