IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1918 of 2019 Date: 26.03.2026 Between Prathapa Rajamouli and 2 others … Petitioners AND Prathapa Mrithyunjayam and 2 others … Respondents

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 26.07.2019 in I.A.No.86 of 2019 in O.S.No.123 of 2012 passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, at Vemulawada.

2. Heard Sri Vedula Venkataramana, learned Senior Counsel representing M/s. Bharadwaj Associates, appearing for the revision petitioners and none appeared for the respondents. I have perused the entire material on record.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners herein filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated

10.02.1971 in respect of agricultural lands in S.No. 872, 873 and 880 admeasuring a total extent of Ac.1-30 guntas comprising the following extents in S.No.872 Ac.1-11 guntas, S.No.873 Ac.0-05 guntas, and in S.No.880, Ac.0-14 guntas, respectively in compact block, locally known as "MEDINOOTHI POLAM" situated at Vemulawada revenue Village and Mandal, Karimnagar District, fully described in the schedule annexed to this plaint, by directing defendant No.1 to execute a registered sale deed in favour of plaintiffs and by directing the defendant Nos.2 and 3 to join as co- vendors along with defendant No.1 in executing the said registered sale deed in favour of plaintiffs in respect of above suit schedule lands and for declaration that the registered sale deed bearing document No.705/2012 dated 08.02.2012 of the office of Sub- Registrar, Vemulawada said to have been executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs.

4. The defendants filed the written statement denying the averments contained in the plaint and also contended that the said agreement of sale and receipts allegedly passed by defendant No.1 are created, fabricated, and forged documents. Therefore, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed the present I.A.No.86 of 2019 filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, seeking relief to send the agreement of sale dated 10.02.1971 to the forensic lab to obtain the expert opinion, as defendant No.1 had denied its execution.

5. The point which has arisen for consideration before the learned trial Court is:

Whether the petitioner is entitled for sending the agreement of sale i.e., Ex.A5, receipts Exs.A22, A23 and A25 along with the admitted signature of the respondent No.1 and specimen signature and hand writing to the hand writing expert under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act or not?

6. Considering the contentions of both parties and material placed on record, the learned trial Court has dismissed the application by relying upon the judgments in Ajit Savant Majagavi Vs. State of Karnataka1 and Dhatla Lakshmipathi Raju Vs. P. Venkataramana (the citation was not provided in the petition), as it would lead to abnormal delay in disposal of the case and the facts in the above said cases are similar to the present case.

7. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed on the ground that the learned trial Court ought to have allowed

1 1997 (7) SCC 110

I.A.No.86 of 2019 for the purpose of sending the signatures appearing on the agreement of sale for comparison to the handwriting expert and further contended that the learned trial Court has committed a serious error in dismissing the petition which is unsustainable in law.

8. Admittedly, the present suit was filed in the year 2012, whereas the present application was filed in the year 2019 for the purpose of proving the execution of the agreement of sale. By the time of filing of the said application, the trial had already commenced and PW1 and PW2 were already examined.

9. Respondent/defendant No.1 filed a counter in IA No.86 of 2019 stating that the petition is filed