The High Court · 2025

Petitioners No 1 and,2.,are minors under the guardianship of their natural Mother smt.Jayamma wo ueminlrr ceoJy nii drl*.r Mandar and Diskicr AND ...petitioners/Respondents P.Saralamma, W/o Late.p.srinivas Reddy, ag_ed 63 years. Occ. House hold, R/o Chenugonipaily Village, Gadwat fr/anoaf inobiit,ilt '-- " ... RespondenUPetitioner lA NO: 1 OF 2023 1l] Petition under section r51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. if,.i iigh C;rt may be pleased to stay jyrther- proceedings pursuant to the order ortl"o r !.oq zo23 in r.A. No. 1 13 of 2022 in os No. 47 0f 2015 0n the fire oitn" irrL s-enior civit Judge, Gadwar, Jogulamba-Gadwal District, pending Oisposat oitnis r"Gion petition. Counsel for the petitioners : Smt_ Usha Kiran representing Sri Ajgal Ravi Babu Counsel forthe Respondent : Sri G L Narasimha Rao The Gourt made the following: ORDER -o HON'BLE S:RI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CTV'IL REVISION PETITION No .1391 of 2o23 ORDER: This Civrl Revision Petition is filed assailing the impugned order dated 1:\.O4.2O23 passed in I'A'No' 113 ol 2022 in OS No.47of201]onthefileofthePrincipalseniorCivilJudge, Gadwal, Jogultrmba Gadwal District'

2. Heard limt. Usha Kiran, Advocate representirlg S;ri Ajgal Ravi Babu, tlre learned counsel for the revision Petitioner and Sri G.L. I'{:rr-asimha Rao, learned counsel for the sole Responder-rt.

3. The Fe itioners herein are plaintiffs and respondettt herein is the defel-r<lilnt No'2 before the trial Court For r:onvenience' the part.ies hr:reinafter are referred to as they are arraYt:d before the trial Cou'-:.

4. Brief f L:tual matrix of the matter is that the plair: tiffs filed a suit for cLeclaration and injunction in O'S'No 47 of 2Ol5 against tht: lefendants in respect of land admeasuring Ac 2-05 Gts., Ac. O-2O Gts, Ac l-14 Gts''Ac O-2O Gts' in Sy.Nos.3SO7l\ 2, 3751 A, 376, g8215 respectively situated in the limits of Chenugonipalli Village, Gadwal Mandal and rhe suit is coming up for cross of the defendant No'2' The I)efendant No.2 has disputed the signattrre of her 5 husB'ant S ri P. Srinivas Reddy on Ex'A3 settlem':nt deed' I I I l ^') r 2 Therefore, the defendant No.2 filed I.A.No. I 73 of 2022, lrnder Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act, praying to send the documents Ex. 82 registered Will Deed bearing document No.12/2072, dated 13.06.2012 and Ex.A3 setttement Deed dated 23.06.2011 for comparison of admitted signature of p. Srinivas Reddy(husband of petitioner), on . Ex.B2 with the disputed signature of p. Srinivas Reddy on Ex.A3 document for expert opinion.

6. The Plaintiffs frled counter and contended that husband of Defendant No.2 was suffering with paralysis and was under dialysis for several years, therefore, there is every possibility of cha,ge/variation in his signatures from one document to another and thus, sought for comparison of signatures ofSri. p. Srinivas Reddy on the registered sale deeds executed by him during the years lgg3-2o14. Learned Counsel further contended that Sri p. Srinivas Reddy executed number of sale deeds during the relevant periocl of 2011 and 2012, therefore, signatures in those documents are also relevant to be compared. Along with counter they have fiIed Memo dated 12.09.2022 trial court mentioning the details of documents executed by Sri P. Srinivas Reddy during his lifetime. They have also lrled Encumbrance Certihcate for the period L993 to 2OI4, containing the details of registered documents numbers before the executed by Sri p. Srinivas Reddy. I i I ljt.5 /) \ )

7. On pertLs;al of the record, it is found that even though a Memo dated 12.Og.2O22 was hled by the Plaintiffs along with information p'rlviding detaiis of documents for comparison' the Court belorv u hile allowing the IA No' 113 of 2022 in OS I{o 47 of 2015 made 1.he following observation: " the p!.ai'ttiffs bluntlg refused to send ttie d octtmertts alone tul'.|ch are required bg the Defendant No 2 Ltut agreed tc send otler registered sale deeds of remaining ou)ners but did not giue proper doanment numbe's and details tahere the compaison is required ' 'The trtril Court allowed the application vide ord':r dated 8. 13.04 .2023 r'-:rd ordered to send or.ly Ex'82 I Registe red Will DeedandE)xl\3/Settlementdeedforcomparisonofsigrratureof Sri. P. Srinivas Reddy. In view of peculiar facts of the case' particularll' :- ee fact that Sri P' Srinivas Reddy' u'as suffering with paralv 'r s, in considered opinion of this Court' it is appropriatt: to send all the sale deeds of relevant period i e 2011 an<1 2l)12 executed by Sri P' Srinivas Reddy along with ' Ex.A3andI.:<.B2forcomparisontoarriveatproperollinionby I the expert In tlre result, the impugned order dated l3'O4'2O23 in lA g. No.113 of 2t )22 in OS No'47 of 2O15 on the hle of the F'rl' Senior Civil Judge Gadwal, Jogulamba Gadwal District' is LLereby set aside. Revisrion Petitioner is at liberty to produce Ori11inal Sale Deeds for tile years pertaining to 2Oll and 2Ol2 ancl on such 4 production, the trial corrrt shali send them for expert opinion along with Ex.B2 ald Ex.A3 for comparison of signatures of Sri P. Srinivas Reddy i.e., the husband of the Defendant No.2. .a

10. Wirh the above said direction, this civil revision petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// ASSIS Sd/. V. KAVITHA NT REGISTRAR S CTION OFFICER To,

1. The Prt. Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal, Jogulamba Gadwal 2. One CC to Sri Ajgal Ravi Babu, Advocate [OpUC] 3: One CC to Sri G L Narasimha Rao, nOvocate lOeUCl 4. Two CD Copies DL/kamq n A HIGH COURT DATED:2110212O2!i ORDER CRP.No.1391 of ,1023 C.R.P. IS DISPOSED OF & \ I ::-i. ? C 3 ? il i,,, .(l t DFspilC' ::2'