P.Padmanabhaiah v. Sivapuram Rama Yogeswara G.Srinivasa Raoa

Smt. Saraj i Manjula ...Petitroner AND Smt. Vulli Yadawa, W/o. Late Mallaiah, Aged about 65 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o. Govardhanigiri Village, Akkannapet Mandal, Siddipet District. Respondent ORDER

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under A;.r cle 227 of tlre Constitution of India assailing the Order in IA.N,I 96 of 2023 in IA.No.480 of '2022 in OS.No.565 ol 2022, dated 17 ( 3.2023 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Husnabad, rv rere under the application filed by the sole respondent under Sect r n 45 of Indian Evidence Act came to be allowed.

2. Petitioner is the respondent-plaintiff and th: respondent is the petitioner-defendant in IA.No.96 of 2023 2lL2 I]RMR,J CRP I 165 2023 \--1 - \

3. 1 . Respondent-petitioner has filed IA.No.96 of 2023 in IA.No.480 of 2022 in OS.No.565 of 2022 to send the alleged Agreement of Sale, dated 25.06.2022 witlr the admitted specimen signatures along u,ith written statement, counter, and vakalath to the Handwriting Expert.

9.2. It is stated in the affidavit that the alleged Agreement of Sale, dated 25.06.2022 is not executed by her (respondent herein) at any point o[ time in favour of the respondent therein (petitioner herein).

4. Petitioner-respondent has liled her counter in the above said I.A. and contended that the sole evidence of Handwriting Expert is not normally sufhcient and the comparison of signatures in the disputed document is to be sent at the commencement of the trial. The deposition of the witnesses is the best evidence than the Expert opinion and the signatures of the person may vary from time to time due to age and health factors, Expert opinion is not conclusive evidence. Petitioner (respondent herein) cleverly sketched to escape from the execution of registered sale deed and it clearly reveals that she may change her writing pattern only to misguide the Court by putting wrong signatures on vakalath, written statement only to create an FSL report in her favour and prayed to dismiss the application. r-)- 4a- 3lt7 BRMR,J cRP 1165 2023

5. The learned trial Court after going through he material on record has allowed IA.No.96 of 2023 holding that r c prejudice will be caused to the respondent (petitioner herein) ar r, it is a fit case to allow the application as prayed for, which is rr rpugned in the CRP.

6. 1 . l,earned counsel for the petitioner-respon d( I t submits that the learned trial Court has committed materia . irregularity in allowing the application filed by the respondent- I rritioner under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act and the Court irt I rw failed to see that suit is frled for specific performance of con triL, t and that the respondent-petitioner offered to sell the suit schecr Ie property for a tolal sale consideration of Rs. 1 1 Lakhs, on he same day petitioner-respondent has paid the total sale consirl, ration and the respondent-petitioner has delivered the possession.

6.2. The learned trial Court failed to see that Il . \io.96 of 2023 came to be hled by the respondent-petitioner after r:ceiving notice in the suit alleging that Agreement of Sale, dated 2., )6.2022 is not executed by her at any point of time. The learned t . rl Court failed to answer the contenlions raised by the petition :r-respondent. Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied or the decisions ^\\ 4112 BRMR,J cRP I 165 2023 in the cases of (1) J'L Babu Vs' Gowri Shankar and anotherr ' (2) Lakkapamula Rani Vs' Manda Batasari2' (3) Byalla Devadas Vs' Rao3, (4) P.Padmanabhaiah Vs Sivapuram Rama Yogeswara G.Srinivasa Raoa '

7.1 l*arr,ed counsel for the respondent-petitioner contended that the Agreement of Sale, dated 25.06.2022 is a fabricated document and that the petitioner- respondent is none other than the daughter-in-law of the responden t-petitioner and her counsel is V.Kumaraswamy who is the son of the responden t-petitioner' As the respondent-petitioner is a senior citizen contesting the suit for specific performance liled by her daughter-in-law (petitioner herein) and if there is a delay in collecting the specimen signatures in open Court, if she dies, the very purpose of applying for Expert comParison will be defeated'

7.2. Counsel contended that if the Court comes to a conclusion that the impugned order requires interference of the High Court then in alternate the learned trial court may be directed to obtain the specimen signature of the respondent-petitioner in open Court and preserve the same in the record for comparison somglyhere in ;3ttJ.-tjli:I:ilJi;??"" z3.o3.zo22or the Hieh court or Andhri Amaravathi ':' 'r , ?"i"ii?"no". - http://indiankanoon'otgl docl917874L5l ' lzorz; t nLt zro I]RMR,J cRP 1165 2023 the remote future. Counsel to substantiate his , ontention has relied on the decisions in the cases of (1) Kessarb:r Vs. Jethabhai Jivans, (2) Ram Narain Vs. State of U.P.6, (3) Uni: r of India and Another Vs. Deoki Nandan AggarwalT, (4) Ajit Savar t Majagavi Vs. State of Karnataka8, (5) Thiruvengada Pillai Vs. Ne /aneethammal and Anr.e, (6) Rajendra Prasad Gupta Vs. Prakash (l landra Mishra and Orsro, (7) Kaparowthu Krishna Rao Vs. I. i rlapudi Satya Krishna Vara Prasada RaoII, (8) Mohammr,, Sultan Vs. Nawazunnisai 2.

8. Learned counsel on record have filed their rvnt en arguments in support of their contentions.

9. Heard learned counsel on record, perused thc r raterial

10. Now the point for consideration is : Whether tt : learned trial Court was justihed in allowing the applicatior llled bv the respondent-petitioner under Section 45 of Indian I ) ider-rce Act in IA.No.96 of 2023 prior to commencement of the tnal s AIR 1928 PtiW c-ounctl277 6 run r9z3 sc 2zoo ' nIR t99z sc 9G 8 AIR 1997 sc a2s5 e fla zooS sc tsct 1o aIR 201t sc 1137 '1 t996 1t; ALD 1151 '' 1992 13; nLo 63t 6112 BRMR,J cRP_1165_2023 \

11. Power of the High Court under Arttcle 227 is supervisory and is exercised to ensure courts and tribunals under its supervision act within the limits of their jurisdiction conferred by law. This power is to be sparingly exercised in cases where errors are apparent on the face of record, occasioning grave injustice by the court or tribunal assuming jurisdiction which it does not have, failing to exercise jurisdiction which it does have, or exercising its jurisdiction in a perverse manner: (See K.Valarmathi and Others Vs. Kumaresan,2025 SCC Online SC 985).

12. 1. Petitioner who is the respondent in the LA. and plaintiff in the suit i.e., OS.No.565 of 2022 stated in the plaint that the respondent-petitioner-defendant is the owner of land admeasuring Acs.02-28 guntas in Survey No.266A1 a-rrd an extent of Ac.0-02 guntas in Survey No.26781, total to an extent of Acs.02-30 guntas situated at Regonda Revenue Village of Akkannapet Mandal of Siddipet District and she offered to sell the said propert5r for a total sale consideration o[ Rs. 1 1 Lakhs. An Agreement of Sa]e is executed on 25.O6.2O2fida tn..t the plaintiff has paid the entire consideration and the defendant has delivered the possession. 1,2.2. ^fhe prayer made in the suit is to direct the defendant (respondent herein) to execute registered sale deed iny'avour of the 7lt2 BRMR,J cRP 1165 2023 plaintiff (petitioner herein) in pursuance of the Ag- emcnt of Sale, dated 25.06.2022.

13. Respondent-petitioner-defendant filed her q ri ren sratement, denied the execution of Agreement of Sale, dated 25. )6.2022.

14. It is apt to refer the observations made bv he trial Court while allowing the application which reads as under: "Therefore, by sending the agreement of r; le t o the Hand Writing Expert along with the adr: ttecl and specimen signatures of defendant taken irL the open court for comparison with the disputed sig:t rtures no prejudice will be caused to the respondent ,plaintilf. Hence, it is f1t case to allow this application .s prayed by the petitioner/ defendant".

15.1. In J.L.Babur, the High Court observed thz. ,,Allowing of application for sending disputed documents for E.< rert's opinion before commencement of trial is not legal".

15.2. In Lakkapamula Raniz, the High Court c tserved that "Sending all the signatures obtained in the open Ccr rt along with suit summons, vakalath, written statements for corr 1 arison to the Expert is impermissible". Similar view is taken in Bva la Devadas3. 8112 BRMR,J cRP r 165_2023

15.3. In P.Padmanabhaiah4, the High Court held that "There is no point in sending to an Expert the documents of doubtful nature and character and add one more piece of unreliable evidence and burden the record by wasting the time and money of the parties".

16. Coming to the case on hand, evidence in the suit is not yet commenced and written statement is filed by the respondent- petitioner. lssues have to be framed, trial has to be commenced It is the petitioner-respondent-plaintiff u'ho has to prove the execution of the Agreement of Sale, dated 25.06.2022 by leading evidence. 77 .1. ln Kessarbais, the Privy Council held that "Mere comparison with admitted signatures especially without the aid in evidence of microscopic enlargements or any Expert advice is by no means of convincing".

17.2. ln Rarri Narain6, the Supreme Court held that "The opinion of a Handwriting Expert given in evidence is no less fallible than any other Expert opinion. But such opinion is worthy of acceptance if there is internal or external evidence rqiating to the writing in quesLion supporting the Expert's view". 9l12 BRMR,J cRP I 165 2023

17.3. In Deoki Nandan Agarwal7, tlte Supreme )ourt held that "It is not the duty of the Court either to enlarge he scope of the iegislation or the intention of the legislature when the language of the provision is plain and unambiguous".

17.4. In Ajit Savant Majagavia, the Supreme Cour . held that "The Court should not normally take step to take rpon itself the responsibility of comparing the disputed signaturer; wrth that of the admitted signatures".

17.5. In Thiruvengada Pillaig, the Supreme Court held that "The Court should hesitate to venture a decision bas:d on its own comparison of the disputed and admitted finger im: .essions..

17.6. ln Rajendra Prasad Guptato, the Supreme ( ourt held that "Rules of procedures are handmaids of justice. Tl i t the provision has to be interpreted to mean that every procedur,: is permitted to the Court for doing justice unless expressly prohitrit d and not that every procedure is prohibited unless expressly pernr ,ted'.

17.7. In Kaparowthu Krishna Rao11, the High r) rurt held that 'Comparison by Court of the disputed and adLnitt€ I signatures a hazardous task". Y \ 10112 BRMR,J cRP 1165 2023

17.8. In Mohammed Su1tan12, the High Court held that "Document not got examined by Handwriting Expert, Court decreed the suit on the basis of comparison of the signature on the receipt with the admitted signature of the defendant and finding that both were written by the defendant held invalid". i8. Deoki Nandan AggarwalT is dealt with the power of the legislation and Rajendra Prasad Guptaro is dealt with the procedures are of handmaid.

19. The other decisions cited by the respondent's counsel stated supra at Para Nos. 17.1, 17.2, 17.4, 17 .5' 17.7, 17'8 are distinguishable from the facts of the present case and thus the ratio of those cases would not apply in the present case on hand in view of the fact that the facts in the above decisions are completeiy different with the case on hald.

20. As stated supra, the evidence in the suit uide OS.No.565 of 2022 is not yet commenced and the learned trial Court has not discussed the contentions raised by the parties in detail and passed cryptic order stated supra at Para No. 14.

21. Learned .ortjE"f for the respondent-petitioner contended that the respondent-petitioner is a senior citizen,. if 4herc is a detay tu12 BRMR,J cRP 1165 2023 in coliecting her specimen signatures in open Court ar I if she dies, the purpose of appiying for Expert opinion will >e defeated. IA.No.96 of 2O23 came to be frled on 19.OI.2O23 and t -re age of the respondent-petiLioner-defendant is shown as 62 ears. The learned trial Court is hereby directed to obtain r re specimen t ( signatures of the respondent in open Court and pres :rve them in the record for comparison. Petitioner-respondent-p,r intiff is also given liberty to furnish the signatures of the respond,r rt-petitioner- defendant if available before the learned Trial Court z s the parties belong to one family. The application filed by th: respondent- petitioner is a premature one and the learned tr z I Court has passed a perverse order. Liberty is given to thr: respondent- petitioner to make another application at appropr ate stage if required.

22. In view of the reasons above, the order passed : r the learned trial Court is perverse and requires interference ,l this Court. Hence, the same is liable to be set aside and is ac:ordingly set aside.

23. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is allowed. )rder passed by the learned trial Court in IA.No.96 of 2023 in IA Ir r .48O of 2022 in OS.No.565 of 2022, dated 17.O3.2O23 ir; set aside. r2112 BRMR,J cRP 1 165 2023 - _G!Ei .- \ \! t-\ Consequently, the petition is dismissed with observations in the order. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim Orders if any shall stands vacated. Miscellaneous application/ s stands closed. SD/- L. VIJAYA LAXMI SISTANT REGISTRAR A //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To, 1 2 3 4 Kam/PSL The Principal Junior Civil Judge at Husnabad One CC to Sri N. Krishna, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri Rakesh Sanghi, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:1011212025 ORDER CRP.No.1165 of 2023 " 7 1[--L{1, a.\ "S' :r \' + r_i ll.1 q ,.c cro,-L ^ ./ l,-'\\ <! rt:.' -. // ALLOWING THE CRP b

Smt. Saraj i Manjula ...Petitroner AND Smt. Vulli Yadawa, W/o. Late Mallaiah, Aged about 65 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o. Govardhanigiri Village, Akkannapet Mandal, Siddipet District. Respondent ORDER

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under A;.r cle 227 of tlre Constitution of India assailing the Order in IA.N,I 96 of 2023 in IA.No.480 of '2022 in OS.No.565 ol 2022, dated 17 ( 3.2023 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Husnabad, rv rere under the application filed by the sole respondent under Sect r n 45 of Indian Evidence Act came to be allowed.

2. Petitioner is the respondent-plaintiff and th: respondent is the petitioner-defendant in IA.No.96 of 2023 2lL2 I]RMR,J CRP I 165 2023 \--1 - \

3. 1 . Respondent-petitioner has filed IA.No.96 of 2023 in IA.No.480 of 2022 in OS.No.565 of 2022 to send the alleged Agreement of Sale, dated 25.06.2022 witlr the admitted specimen signatures along u,ith written statement, counter, and vakalath to the Handwriting Expert.

9.2. It is stated in the affidavit that the alleged Agreement of Sale, dated 25.06.2022 is not executed by her (respondent herein) at any point o[ time in favour of the respondent therein (petitioner herein).

4. Petitioner-respondent has liled her counter in the above said I.A. and contended that the sole evidence of Handwriting Expert is not normally sufhcient and the comparison of signatures in the disputed document is to be sent at the commencement of the trial. The deposition of the witnesses is the best evidence than the Expert opinion and the signatures of the person may vary from time to time due to age and health factors, Expert opinion is not conclusive evidence. Petitioner (respondent herein) cleverly sketched to escape from the execution of registered sale deed and it clearly reveals that she may change her writing pattern only to misguide the Court by putting wrong signatures on vakalath, written statement only to create an FSL report in her favour and prayed to dismiss the application. r-)- 4a- 3lt7 BRMR,J cRP 1165 2023

5. The learned trial Court after going through he material on record has allowed IA.No.96 of 2023 holding that r c prejudice will be caused to the respondent (petitioner herein) ar r, it is a fit case to allow the application as prayed for, which is rr rpugned in the CRP.

6. 1 . l,earned counsel for the petitioner-respon d( I t submits that the learned trial Court has committed materia . irregularity in allowing the application filed by the respondent- I rritioner under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act and the Court irt I rw failed to see that suit is frled for specific performance of con triL, t and that the respondent-petitioner offered to sell the suit schecr Ie property for a tolal sale consideration of Rs. 1 1 Lakhs, on he same day petitioner-respondent has paid the total sale consirl, ration and the respondent-petitioner has delivered the possession.

6.2. The learned trial Court failed to see that Il . \io.96 of 2023 came to be hled by the respondent-petitioner after r:ceiving notice in the suit alleging that Agreement of Sale, dated 2., )6.2022 is not executed by her at any point of time. The learned t . rl Court failed to answer the contenlions raised by the petition :r-respondent. Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied or the decisions ^\\ 4112 BRMR,J cRP I 165 2023 in the cases of (1) J'L Babu Vs' Gowri Shankar and anotherr ' (2) Lakkapamula Rani Vs' Manda Batasari2' (3) Byalla Devadas Vs' Rao3, (4) P.Padmanabhaiah Vs Sivapuram Rama Yogeswara G.Srinivasa Raoa '

7.1 l*arr,ed counsel for the respondent-petitioner contended that the Agreement of Sale, dated 25.06.2022 is a fabricated document and that the petitioner- respondent is none other than the daughter-in-law of the responden t-petitioner and her counsel is V.Kumaraswamy who is the son of the responden t-petitioner' As the respondent-petitioner is a senior citizen contesting the suit for specific performance liled by her daughter-in-law (petitioner herein) and if there is a delay in collecting the specimen signatures in open Court, if she dies, the very purpose of applying for Expert comParison will be defeated'

7.2. Counsel contended that if the Court comes to a conclusion that the impugned order requires interference of the High Court then in alternate the learned trial court may be directed to obtain the specimen signature of the respondent-petitioner in open Court and preserve the same in the record for comparison somglyhere in ;3ttJ.-tjli:I:ilJi;??"" z3.o3.zo22or the Hieh court or Andhri Amaravathi ':' 'r , ?"i"ii?"no". - http://indiankanoon'otgl docl917874L5l ' lzorz; t nLt zro I]RMR,J cRP 1165 2023 the remote future. Counsel to substantiate his , ontention has relied on the decisions in the cases of (1) Kessarb:r Vs. Jethabhai Jivans, (2) Ram Narain Vs. State of U.P.6, (3) Uni: r of India and Another Vs. Deoki Nandan AggarwalT, (4) Ajit Savar t Majagavi Vs. State of Karnataka8, (5) Thiruvengada Pillai Vs. Ne /aneethammal and Anr.e, (6) Rajendra Prasad Gupta Vs. Prakash (l landra Mishra and Orsro, (7) Kaparowthu Krishna Rao Vs. I. i rlapudi Satya Krishna Vara Prasada RaoII, (8) Mohammr,, Sultan Vs. Nawazunnisai 2.

8. Learned counsel on record have filed their rvnt en arguments in support of their contentions.

9. Heard learned counsel on record, perused thc r raterial

10. Now the point for consideration is : Whether tt : learned trial Court was justihed in allowing the applicatior llled bv the respondent-petitioner under Section 45 of Indian I ) ider-rce Act in IA.No.96 of 2023 prior to commencement of the tnal s AIR 1928 PtiW c-ounctl277 6 run r9z3 sc 2zoo ' nIR t99z sc 9G 8 AIR 1997 sc a2s5 e fla zooS sc tsct 1o aIR 201t sc 1137 '1 t996 1t; ALD 1151 '' 1992 13; nLo 63t 6112 BRMR,J cRP_1165_2023 \

11. Power of the High Court under Arttcle 227 is supervisory and is exercised to ensure courts and tribunals under its supervision act within the limits of their jurisdiction conferred by law. This power is to be sparingly exercised in cases where errors are apparent on the face of record, occasioning grave injustice by the court or tribunal assuming jurisdiction which it does not have, failing to exercise jurisdiction which it does have, or exercising its jurisdiction in a perverse manner: (See K.Valarmathi and Others Vs. Kumaresan,2025 SCC Online SC 985).

12. 1. Petitioner who is the respondent in the LA. and plaintiff in the suit i.e., OS.No.565 of 2022 stated in the plaint that the respondent-petitioner-defendant is the owner of land admeasuring Acs.02-28 guntas in Survey No.266A1 a-rrd an extent of Ac.0-02 guntas in Survey No.26781, total to an extent of Acs.02-30 guntas situated at Regonda Revenue Village of Akkannapet Mandal of Siddipet District and she offered to sell the said propert5r for a total sale consideration o[ Rs. 1 1 Lakhs. An Agreement of Sa]e is executed on 25.O6.2O2fida tn..t the plaintiff has paid the entire consideration and the defendant has delivered the possession. 1,2.2. ^fhe prayer made in the suit is to direct the defendant (respondent herein) to execute registered sale deed iny'avour of the 7lt2 BRMR,J cRP 1165 2023 plaintiff (petitioner herein) in pursuance of the Ag- emcnt of Sale, dated 25.06.2022.

13. Respondent-petitioner-defendant filed her q ri ren sratement, denied the execution of Agreement of Sale, dated 25. )6.2022.

14. It is apt to refer the observations made bv he trial Court while allowing the application which reads as under: "Therefore, by sending the agreement of r; le t o the Hand Writing Expert along with the adr: ttecl and specimen signatures of defendant taken irL the open court for comparison with the disputed sig:t rtures no prejudice will be caused to the respondent ,plaintilf. Hence, it is f1t case to allow this application .s prayed by the petitioner/ defendant".

15.1. In J.L.Babur, the High Court observed thz. ,,Allowing of application for sending disputed documents for E.< rert's opinion before commencement of trial is not legal".

15.2. In Lakkapamula Raniz, the High Court c tserved that "Sending all the signatures obtained in the open Ccr rt along with suit summons, vakalath, written statements for corr 1 arison to the Expert is impermissible". Similar view is taken in Bva la Devadas3. 8112 BRMR,J cRP r 165_2023

15.3. In P.Padmanabhaiah4, the High Court held that "There is no point in sending to an Expert the documents of doubtful nature and character and add one more piece of unreliable evidence and burden the record by wasting the time and money of the parties".

16. Coming to the case on hand, evidence in the suit is not yet commenced and written statement is filed by the respondent- petitioner. lssues have to be framed, trial has to be commenced It is the petitioner-respondent-plaintiff u'ho has to prove the execution of the Agreement of Sale, dated 25.06.2022 by leading evidence. 77 .1. ln Kessarbais, the Privy Council held that "Mere comparison with admitted signatures especially without the aid in evidence of microscopic enlargements or any Expert advice is by no means of convincing".

17.2. ln Rarri Narain6, the Supreme Court held that "The opinion of a Handwriting Expert given in evidence is no less fallible than any other Expert opinion. But such opinion is worthy of acceptance if there is internal or external evidence rqiating to the writing in quesLion supporting the Expert's view". 9l12 BRMR,J cRP I 165 2023

17.3. In Deoki Nandan Agarwal7, tlte Supreme )ourt held that "It is not the duty of the Court either to enlarge he scope of the iegislation or the intention of the legislature when the language of the provision is plain and unambiguous".

17.4. In Ajit Savant Majagavia, the Supreme Cour . held that "The Court should not normally take step to take rpon itself the responsibility of comparing the disputed signaturer; wrth that of the admitted signatures".

17.5. In Thiruvengada Pillaig, the Supreme Court held that "The Court should hesitate to venture a decision bas:d on its own comparison of the disputed and admitted finger im: .essions..

17.6. ln Rajendra Prasad Guptato, the Supreme ( ourt held that "Rules of procedures are handmaids of justice. Tl i t the provision has to be interpreted to mean that every procedur,: is permitted to the Court for doing justice unless expressly prohitrit d and not that every procedure is prohibited unless expressly pernr ,ted'.

17.7. In Kaparowthu Krishna Rao11, the High r) rurt held that 'Comparison by Court of the disputed and adLnitt€ I signatures a hazardous task". Y \ 10112 BRMR,J cRP 1165 2023

17.8. In Mohammed Su1tan12, the High Court held that "Document not got examined by Handwriting Expert, Court decreed the suit on the basis of comparison of the signature on the receipt with the admitted signature of the defendant and finding that both were written by the defendant held invalid". i8. Deoki Nandan AggarwalT is dealt with the power of the legislation and Rajendra Prasad Guptaro is dealt with the procedures are of handmaid.

19. The other decisions cited by the respondent's counsel stated supra at Para Nos. 17.1, 17.2, 17.4, 17 .5' 17.7, 17'8 are distinguishable from the facts of the present case and thus the ratio of those cases would not apply in the present case on hand in view of the fact that the facts in the above decisions are completeiy different with the case on hald.

20. As stated supra, the evidence in the suit uide OS.No.565 of 2022 is not yet commenced and the learned trial Court has not discussed the contentions raised by the parties in detail and passed cryptic order stated supra at Para No. 14.

21. Learned .ortjE"f for the respondent-petitioner contended that the respondent-petitioner is a senior citizen,. if 4herc is a detay tu12 BRMR,J cRP 1165 2023 in coliecting her specimen signatures in open Court ar I if she dies, the purpose of appiying for Expert opinion will >e defeated. IA.No.96 of 2O23 came to be frled on 19.OI.2O23 and t -re age of the respondent-petiLioner-defendant is shown as 62 ears. The learned trial Court is hereby directed to obtain r re specimen t ( signatures of the respondent in open Court and pres :rve them in the record for comparison. Petitioner-respondent-p,r intiff is also given liberty to furnish the signatures of the respond,r rt-petitioner- defendant if available before the learned Trial Court z s the parties belong to one family. The application filed by th: respondent- petitioner is a premature one and the learned tr z I Court has passed a perverse order. Liberty is given to thr: respondent- petitioner to make another application at appropr ate stage if required.

22. In view of the reasons above, the order passed : r the learned trial Court is perverse and requires interference ,l this Court. Hence, the same is liable to be set aside and is ac:ordingly set aside.

23. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is allowed. )rder passed by the learned trial Court in IA.No.96 of 2023 in IA Ir r .48O of 2022 in OS.No.565 of 2022, dated 17.O3.2O23 ir; set aside. r2112 BRMR,J cRP 1 165 2023 - _G!Ei .- \ \! t-\ Consequently, the petition is dismissed with observations in the order. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim Orders if any shall stands vacated. Miscellaneous application/ s stands closed. SD/- L. VIJAYA LAXMI SISTANT REGISTRAR A //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To, 1 2 3 4 Kam/PSL The Principal Junior Civil Judge at Husnabad One CC to Sri N. Krishna, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri Rakesh Sanghi, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:1011212025 ORDER CRP.No.1165 of 2023 " 7 1[--L{1, a.\ "S' :r \' + r_i ll.1 q ,.c cro,-L ^ ./ l,-'\\ <! rt:.' -. // ALLOWING THE CRP b