The Court made the following:

COMMON ORDER:

C.R.P. No. 3427 of 2025 is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 27.06.2025 dismissing I.A. No. 165 of 2022 in O.S. No. 134 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tadipatri, filed by the defendant No.3 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, r/w. Section 151 of C.P.C. to send the disputed promissory notes, a copy of registered will dated 06.06.2003 and the hand writings of M. Chenna Kesava Reddy obtained in open Court to hand writing expert for its examination.

C.R.P. No. 3438 of 2025 is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 27.06.2025 dismissing I.A. No. 453 of 2021 in O.S. No. 100 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tadipatri, filed by the defendant No.3 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, r/w. Section 151 of C.P.C. seeking the similar relief as in I.A. No. 165 of 2020 in O.S. No. 134 of 2017.

C.R.P. Nos. 3448, 3449 and 3535 of 2025 are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the common order dated 27.06.2025 dismissing I.A. Nos. 457, 459 and 460 of 2021 in O.S. No. 99 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tadipatri, all filed by the defendant No.3.

I.A. No. 457 of 2017 is filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send the disputed promissory note / Ex.A1, a copy of registered will No. 4/2003, dated 06.06.2003, and the hand writing of M. Chenna Kesava Reddy obtained in open Court to a hand writing expert for examination of the signature. I.A. No. 459 of 2021 is filed under Order VIII, Rule 1A (3) r/w 151 C.P.C. to receive a copy of the registered will No. 4/2003, dated 06.06.2003. I.A. No. 460 of 2021 is filed under Order XVIII, Rule 17 r/w. 151 C.P.C. to recall D.W.1 to adduce evidence and mark the document.

The case of the petitioner is, briefly, as follows:

a. The revision petitioner herein is the defendant No.3 in O.S. Nos. 99, 100 and 134 of 2017. The three suits were filed for recovery of the amount on promissory notes dated 06.10.2014, 14.07.2014 and 10.08.2014, each for Rs.1,00,000/-, allegedly executed by Moolinti Nagi Reddy. As he died on 22.10.2016, the suits were filed against his legal heirs viz., the defendants Nos.1 to 3. The defendant No.1 is the wife of Late Moolinti Nagi Reddy, the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are his son and daughter.

b. The plaintiff in O.S. Nos. 99 and 134 of 2017 is P. Vasudeva Reddy. The plaintiff in O.S. No.100 of 2017 is V. Siva Rami Reddy.

c. The suits were filed for recovery of the amounts of Rs.1,33,541/-, Rs.1,34,861/- and Rs.1,33,958/- with future interest @ 12% per annum respectively in O.S. Nos.134, 100 and 99 of 2017.

The suits were opposed by the defendant No.3 / the petitioner herein by filing written statements, briefly, stating as follows:

a. This defendant’s father never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff. The plaintiff in O.S. Nos. 99, 134 of 2017 i.e., P. Vasudeva Reddy is brother of the defendant No.2’s wife and son of the defendant No. 1’s brother. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 100 of 2017 i.e., V. Siva Rami Reddy is maternal uncle of the defendant No. 2’s wife. The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 colluded and created the suit promissory notes by forging the signature of the deceased M. Nagi Reddy.

b. It is false that the defendants alone are the legal heirs of the deceased M. Nagi Reddy. Late M. Nagi Reddy has another daughter by name Venkata Krishnamma. She died on 24.01.2017.

c. This defendant is physically handicapped woman. After the death of father this defendant, this defendant and the other defendants have been enjoying the joint family’s landed properties without any partition. The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 have ill feeling against this defendant and created the suit promissory notes to cause loss to this defendant. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the suits.

Similarly,