IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3636 of 2023 DATED THE 23^rd DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 Between:

Choppari Anjaiah, S/o.Rajaiah … Petitioner-petitioner-appellant And Vusthem Veeresham, S/o.Rajaiah and six others ... Respondents-respondents

ORDER:

1. This Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 06.10.2023 passed in I.A.No.274 of 2023 in A.S.No.24 of 2021 by the learned Principal District Judge, Peddapalli.

2. Petitioner is the petitioner-appellant and respondents are the respondents in I.A.

3.1 Petitioner has filed petition (I.A.No.274 of 2023) under Rule 129 of Civil Rules of Practice to call for the documents i.e., original plaint and vakalathnama of Mr.Vusthem Veeresham – plaintiff in O.S.No.44 of 2005 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Sulthanabad to the learned Principal District Judge, Peddapalli for comparison of the signatures of Ex.A-1 in O.S.No.43 of 2012 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli, for the purpose of sending the same to handwriting expert opinion to Government CFSL, Hyderabad.

3.2 It is stated in the affidavit that the petitioner has preferred an appeal vide A.S.No.24 of 2021 before the learned appellate Court against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.43 of 2012 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli.

3.3 The learned Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli observed in paragraph No.13 in page No.10 of its judgment that the petitioner- plaintiff has not taken steps to send the documents for handwriting expert regarding the signatures on Ex.A-1 (agreement of sale dated 07.07.2004). Petitioner has also filed petition under Order XLI Rule 27 (b) of C.P.C r/w Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act to send the signatures of defendant No.1 (DW-2) on Ex.A-1 for comparison of signatures in O.S.No.43 of 2012. Therefore, prayed to call for original plaint copy and vakalathnama of Vusthem Veeresham – plaintiff in O.S.No.44 of 2005 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Sulthanabad.

4. Respondents have filed counter and contended that the petitioners have no right to file the petition to call for the documents i.e., original plaint and vakalathnama of Vusthem Veeresham – plaintiff in O.S.No.44 of 2005 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Sulthanabad and prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. The learned trial Court after going through the material on record has dismissed the said I.A. on 06.10.2023, which is impugned in the present C.R.P.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court has dismissed the petition without going into the material on record. Petitioner has filed I.A.No.274 of 2023 under Rule 129 of Civil Rules of Practice by wrongly quoting the provision. In fact, Rule 128 of Civil Rules of Practice deals with production of record in the custody of the Court. The suit is filed by the petitioner for specific performance of agreement of sale and for declaration of registered documents to be declared as null and void. The order passed by the learned trial Court is erroneous and it is apparent on the face of the record. Counsel relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand, (2022) 7 SCC 247

7. The present CRP came to be dismissed for default on 23.02.2024 and the same was restored as per the orders passed by this Court in I.A.No.03 of 2024 on 17.09.2025.

8. After restoration of the CRP notices were issued to the respondents. Notice got issued to respondent No.1 is returned as expired and learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.2 also expired and her legal heirs are respondent

Nos.6 and 7. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are husband and wife and their legal heirs are respondent Nos.6 and 7. Notices got issued to respondent Nos.6 and 7 are also served as per the track consignment after its restoration. Learned counsel for