Jagili Vanisree v. Bache Gangadhar
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 03 Jul 2025
- Bench
- VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 227
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 151
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 s. 45
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Accordingly, with the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this case shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- K J RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,
Judgment
Cause title
Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 28.10.2024 passed in I.A.No.190 of 2024 in O.S.No.134 of 2023 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kadapa Between: Jagili Vanisree, W/o. J.Veera Nagaiah, Aged about 46 years, Occ House Wife, D.N0.7/347-29-A-4, Simhapuri Colony Kadapa City, YSR R/o. (Kadapa) District. ...Petitioner
AND Bache Gangadhar, S/o. Gangaiah, Aged about 53 years, Gcc Business, R/o. D.No.2/474, Pancha Mukha Anjaneya Swamy Street, Nehru Nagar, Kadapa City, YSR (Kadapa) District. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 to ...Respondent
/ stay all further proceedings in O.S.No.134 of 2023 Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kadapa, pending disposal of C.R.P. on the file of the II V Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SHAIK MOHAMMED ISMAIL Counsel for the Respondent: SRI PAPUDIPPU SASHIDAR REDDY The Court made the following Order: / ,'7 '7 APHC010054182025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3329] (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 323/2025 Between;
1.JAGILI VANISREE, /O. J.VEERA NAGAIAH, YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, COLONY, KADAPA CITY, YSR (KADAPA) E)ISTRICT AGED ABOUT 46 R/0. D.NO.7/347-29-A-4, SIMHAPURI ...PETITIONER
AND
1.BACHE GANGADHAR, S/o. Gangaiah, Aged about 53 years, Occ R/o. D.No.2/474, Pancha Mukha Anjaneya Swamy Street, Business, Nehru Nagar, Kadapa City, YSR (Kadapa) District. ...RESPONDENT
3 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 to begs to present this Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition to this Honble Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 28.10.2024 passed in I.A.No. 190 of 2024 in O.S.No. 134 of 2023 Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kadapa in on the file of the II Additional dismissing the Petition filed under section 45 of Indian Evidence Act, praying to send the promissory note and also specimen signatures of petitioner/defen dant by taking in open court as the Hon Tile Court may be pleased to fix the date and also other signatures available before the HonTDIe Court to the Hand Writing Expert, A.P. Forensic Science Laboratory, Tech Tower Building, 4th Floor, Beside DGP Office, Mangaligiri, Guntur District lA NO; 1 OF 2025 2 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 all further proceedings in O.S.No. 134 of 2023 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge, (Junior Division) Kadapa, pending disposal of above C.R.P and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1 .SHAIK MOHAMMED ISMAIL Counsel for the Respondent:
1.PAPUDIPPU SASHIDAR REDDY The Court made the following: // 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 323/2025
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition preferred aggrieved by the dated 28.10.2024 passed in I.A.No.190 of 2024 in O.S.No.134 of 2023 on the file of the learned II Additional Civil Judge(Junior Division), Kadapa .
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court below without properly appreciating the claim of the petitioner has erroneously dismissed the application on the ground that signatures of the petitioner taken in the open Court and signatures available on record cannot be treated as I comparable for the purpose of expert analysis. He further submits that the observation of the Court below that the signatures on the summons and vakalath cannot be compared and cannot be sent to obtain expert opinion is untenable in law. Hence, the learned counsel requests that the petitioner may be permitted to submit an application afresh for fresh consideration of admitted signatures of the petitioner herein other than the Court record.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner is always at liberty to file a fresh application based on the fresh evidence in order to substantiate her case.
In view of the submission made by both the learned counsels, this Court is of the considered view that the present Civil Revision Case can be 4 disposed of directing the petitioner herein to submit a fresh application for ' consideration of fresh evidence under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 read with 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. On filing of such application, the Court below may consider the same by providing opportunity of hearing parties concerned and pass appropriate orders accordance with law at the earliest on merits.
Accordingly, with the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this case shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- K J RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,
The II Additional Civil Judge, (Junior Division) Kadapa. 2. One CC to Sri. Shaik Mohammed Ismail, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to 4. Two CD Copies Sri. Papudippu Sashidar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] MKP HIGH COURT DATED: 03/07/2025 ORDER CRP NO. 323 OF 2025 ^ 2 9 JUL 2025 €: S«Ci»t«nlStcliat^y ''SSSSSSS^^ m Co DISPOSING THE C.R.P. WITHOUT COSTS
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 227; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 45.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 03 Jul 2025. The bench was VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.