THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI

C.R.P.NO. 3608 of 2025

Between

Kattekola Narsimha Rao and Another.

… Petitioners

AND

Shaik Yakub, S/o.Shaik Ali,

Aged about 45 years, Occ: Agriculture,

R/o.Patharlapahad Village of

Athmakur Mandal, Suryapet District,

Telangana and Four Others.

… Respondents

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order of the

Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet, dated 04.09.2025 in I.A.No.400 of

2025 in O.S.No.33 of 2025.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Civil

Revision Petition are that the suit in O.S.No.123 of 2014 was filed on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Suryapet and subsequently, the same was renumbered as O.S.No.33 of 2025 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet. The suit was filed for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 15.02.1990. The revision petitioners are the defendants No.1 and 2 in the suit. The defendants filed their written statements denying the execution of alleged agreement of sale by the father of the Petitioner No.1 late K.Madhusudhan Rao and it was further

alleged that agreement of sale was a forged and fabricated document and that it was never executed in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants filed I.A.No.400 of 2025 in O.S.No.33 of 2025 under Rule 128 of Civil Rules of Practice read with Section 151 of CPC, to summon the original registered sale deed No.203/1987, dated 16.02.1997 which was filed in LAOP No.27/1992 and to mark the same as exhibit in the main suit. The petitioners stated that they have filed a certified copy of the registered sale deed No.203/1987, dated 16.02.1997, before the Court as admitted signatures of the petitioners’ father and that since the original copy of the same is filed in LAOP No.27/1992 before the same Court and they intend to send the registered document along with the suit agreement to the handwriting expert for comparing the signatures of their father on the said document, the document i.e., the original registered sale deed No.203/1987, dated 16.02.1997 may be summoned from the records of LAOP No.27/1992.

3. The plaintiffs, however, opposed the same stating that the suit was originally filed in the year 2014 and that the petitioners have not whispered about the original sale deed in the written statement and further that the petitioners themselves can receive the original document from the Court in LAOP case and file the same before the Court but they cannot make the Court as an agent for fetching the evidence for them.

4. Considering the said contentions, the trial Court has dismissed the petition by observing that the registered sale deed No.203/1987, is not a document where plaintiff is a party and also that the subject matter of the registered sale deed and the subject matter of the main suit are not the same and therefore, the said document is irrelevant. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the purpose of requisitioning the registered document in LAOP No.27/1992 is only for comparison of the signatures of the executant of registered sale deed with the signatures of the alleged agreement of sale, which are denied by the defendants and it is not for any other purpose. It is submitted that the original of the document sought to be sent for comparison was in another case before the same Court and therefore, the petitioners have filed the present I.A., and instead of allowing the same, the trial Court has not appreciated the facts and has observed that the plaintiffs are not a party to the suit and therefore, the document is not necessary. He submitted that this finding of the trial court is not on proper appreciation of facts and hence needs to be set aside and the I.A., be allowed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati in the case of Smt Dr.P.Rajyalakshmi Vs.

V.Adinarayana, 2025(6) ALT 135(AP), in support of his contentions.

7. Learned counsel f