Smt. Vanaparthy Bhagya Laxmi, Wo v. Uppalayya, aged

4. Sri Uppalayya, S/o. Narayana, aged 65 years, Occ. Business, R/ o. H.No. 4- 242, Ex-Servicemen Colony, Phase-ll, Balaji Nagar, Shamirpet [Vlandal Ranga Reddy District. ... Petitioners/DefendanG AND 'l . Sri N.R. Ravi Kumar, S/o. D. Narasimha Rao, aged major, Occ. Business, 2. Sri D. Narasimha Rao, S/ o. Late D. Narasaiah, aged major, Occ. Ex- Servicemen,

3. Smt. D. Padmavathi, Wo. D. Narasimha Rao, aged major Occ. Housewife (All are R/o. H.No.12, Tulsi Garden, Yapral, Secunderabad) ...RespondenUPlai ntiffs 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 stay all further proceedings arising out of O. S No. '12 of 2014, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge. Medchal Malkajgiri District. at Medchal, pending disposal of the present CRP. Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. R ANURAG, Advocate Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. A SANJAY, Advocate The Court made the following: ORDER 'fhc Flon'blc Smt. Justice Rcnuka Yara Civil Revision Petition No.1512 of 2025 Order: 'l'his (.ivrl llo.ision [)ctitior.r is prcferrcd aggricvcd by thc ordcr datcd I 1.03.2025 in [..\.No.93 <tf 2025 in ().S.No.12 of 201.4 passed br, thc lcarnccl I)rincipal Se nior (.ii,il Judgc, Nlcclchal Malkajgin District ar ,\ lcrichel. s. hcrcin. :1 l)rtiti()rl trlcd unck'r Scction 39 of [Jharativa Sekshr e .\dhir.rilarn, 202.1 ( rlcl Sccrion J5 of Indian F,r.idcncc .'\ct) t<r scnd lrss.li9 and I]10 t() c()nrparc thc signatures thcrcin with the signaturcs of rcspondcnts /plain d lls on thc plaint and val<alat in thc ntatn slltf along rvith l rx. tl I -1 to a harrdrvriting cxpert, has bccn disrnissctl. ) IIcard Sri It. i\nurag, lcarncd counsel for thc pctitioncrs/cle lendanrs anrl Sri ,\. Sanjal', learned counscl for responrk n ts /plair-rti ifi. l)crtrsctl thr recorrl

3. 'l'hc bricf facts oi thc case are that thc respondcnts/plainuf[s fllcd suit sccking dcclaratiorr oF iitle, dclircn' of vacaflt possession and +} 2 dcclaration oi salc dced documcnt bcaring No. l'()lJ of 2014, datcd 1,2.05.2014 as illcgal and sharn and irrr othcr rclicfs \\'rth rcspcct t() sLrit schcclule pr()pe rtv consisting of lancl aclneasuring l'fl) sc1.r ds., situatcd at Sv.No.s609 and 610, Phase-II, Balaii Nagrr,.las,ahar Nagar, (ihennapur Yilalge, Shamccrpct Nlanclal, llansa llctkll I)istrict. 'I he rcspondcnts' clain-r is that rcsponclent N( ).i is :rn illitt:rltc rvornan and shc can barcly u'ritc lrcr namc in 'fclugu and n-tost , ritcn, puts thr-rml: impression oo rll thc documcnts rvherc slrc is rcclLrirctl to do so. 'l'hc rcspondcnt No.3 I-ras not executed anv Ll()curncrrts rnuch Icss the Agreements of salc rvhich contains hcr signaturc, 'l'hc petitione rs /de lt:ndan ts havc filcd vu'rirten stiltcrncnt asserting that rcspcndcnt No.3 l-ras sisnect ( )t1 f$( ) :\grccnlclris of se lc datcd

29.06.2000 in far.otrr of petitioncr Nos., and -J. ( )n rtrc basis of said Agrecmcrlts of salc, thc pcritione rs arc opposinr rl.rc suif cl:Lirn. ln order to dclend thcir case, thc pctitioners irrtcnrl ro estal;lish that rcspondcnt No.3 has signcd r>n the Agrccmcn ts of salc clatcd

29.(16.2000 unclcr l'.ss.[]9 ancl Rl0 bv c<>mparins thc saicl siqn:rturcs rvitl'r the siqnaturcs on plaint, vakelar and Nlernorandum o[ dcposit of dtlc deccls bcarins clrcumcnt No. l-l(r-[ o{ 2016 to bc scnt for expert opinion bt invoking thc provisions o[ Scction 39 o[ IJharariva Sakshya ,\dhinivarn, 2023. Rclore thc 'I'rial court, Ilxs.89, I]10 and R14 rverc marked througl'r DVl during chie I cxamination conducted commonly in ().S.No. l2 <tf 20'll (().S.No. lt)-l t>f 2016) 27 of 2016.'l'he ^nd rcsponclcnts dicl rrot rlisc anv lcuel .qround r() ()pp()se scnding o[ thc disputccl signaturcs ftrr comparison bv r I landrvritrng cxpcrr exccpt raising thc c()nccrn of dclav in tiling thc pctition. No othcr reason is cited lor opposine thc pctition. \\'ithout considcring said factors, the lcarncd 'l'rial Cotrrt dismissccl rhc l.r\ on thc solc iyound thar thc pctiti()n is filcd at thc lag cncl of the trial. Aggricvcd by thc said order, the prcsent (livil ltcvision Petitic.rn is pretirred.

1. In srourrrls ol rcvisit,n, it is plcaclcd that the rc is an crroncous finding xl)()ut rcspondcnt No.3 is not har.ing habit o[ appcnding her signaturc but alfixing thumLr irnprcssion over anv documcnt. Florvcvcr, thcrc is an obse rvrtion thar thc disl>urcd d( )cumcnts r-,ught to I'ravc been : :,:l: : re ferrcd to a Handwringing expcrt bl rhc rcspondcrrrs and n()r rhc peddoners' Dismissal is n.rhins bur 'ioratirln of rigrrr ,r- rt.sprrrtJcnr No'3 whr intcncrs to estabrish hcr der'encc and scn<iing thc d-cumcnts fr.rr verification to a Handwriting c.'tpert rv-urd hclp in cstabrishing thc relerznt fact i.e. respondent No.3 is in the habir of subscribing signatures antl has cxccured Exs.t]9 ancl 1110. plcaded that the disputc is around exccution of documcnrs and therefore, .it is crucial to provc thc samc bv scnding rht. tL r6111nsp1 51, o I landwriting cxpert. .fhe dcnial of such a relicf resulrs in rniscarriasc of rr.r.isiorr pcdrir.rncrs _l.hc ,us tlce. llrtr tt( )ncrs .) l) urlng argumcnts, the lr,arnecl c11unscl frrr rltc, rcfi'r:rcd ro thr: trnpugrr-red orde r allc glog thar thc ,.,rrly rcas,n i1 'r lrcl:rrccl s t:rrac in an disrnrssing thc pctition is thar the samc is filcd ar a .ld suit. Further, it is argued that rhcrc is an crr<;n thcre is no suppordng pleading in rhc plaint about antl lll() J-ast'r'' ir is also a*rucd trrar rhc lcarnctl .r'riar tht lrurtlen of Proof is olr thc respo1l11111gs r() pr()\.c fi,r_,,,,11 ,,1 l:rs.lJ9 for,gc rl r,i I..xs.ll9 (.oLu-r hcrrr rh:rt eoris plclcling that 5 and 810, brrt thc rcspondcnts do not intencl to scnd the docurncnts for a I lands,riting expcrt t)ut arc proposin.q t() pr(]\-c rhcir casc bl adducing othcr supporting cviclcncc. It is aruuccl thar rhc learncd 'l'rial (.ourt has givcn a fincling that tl-rc petiti<>n is hlecl to co\rcr up the lacunas in thc casc of the petitioncrs rvhich is n()t truc. l)clav in itself cannot bc a grouncl to dcny thc relicf as a pctitior-r to scnd documcnts to a Handrvritins cxpcrt c,rn bc trled at rr1\' siuge of thc procecclings.

6. T'hc learned counsel ftrr thc rcsp()n(lcnts opposcd thc rcvision on thc ground of latchcs as thc pe titi()n is filcd at l>clated stagc <if cross cxamination of thc clclendants' u,itncsscs

7. A pcrusal o[ the rccord shou's that thc rcspondents arc sccliing dcclaration of titlc, rcc()vcr\r of posscssion ancl clcclaration of salc deecl as null and void. Such drasdc relic[s rccluirc a parfi't() pr()ve their casc. ln that contcxt, ttrc cvidencc is led b1' the rcspondcnts /plainti[fs. The contcntion oF thc pctitioners is that .\1;rccrncnts of sale dated *).06.2t)00 arc t,, rgcd, thlrt thc signaturc of rcs;rr.,nclcnt No.3 on F,xs.R9 I 6 anll l:110 are rtot affixed bv hcr as she is in the hrLbit of aFt-rring hcr thr-rrnb inrprr:ssi( )n ()n the documcnts \\,hcrcvcr it i: rct;uirctl. Irt that c()ntcxr, iinding o[ the lcarncd 'frial Court rhat thc lrurdcn of prooF to provc tbrscn is on thc rcspondents /plain ufls is appropriatc. I lt ts'e vcr, s,'ht'n thc rcspondcnts lead evidcncc throu.gh othcr srrpporurrg cviclencc bv csernirrir-tp s,itncsscs or by producing supportinq Ll( )curn('nts, thc onLrs oiprrxrl shitis to the petitioncrs t() pr()\'c tlret l-rs-fi9 rrr:rl lll0 are .gc'ntunc clocrrmcnts and that thc signaturc thurcirr l;cl rr11s t() t'cspondcn: No.l. 'fhc burdcn of pt'ovinq ftrrqerr rnav bc ,n thc rcspr-,ndcnts, horvcvcr, the proof o[ genuincncss t,[- the doctrmcnts rclicd upon bv thc pctitioners in 'IJ' serics is on thc pcritiorrcrs. l hc rnatrcr is srill at thc stagc of trial i.c. rccorclinq ,rf cvirlcrrce of clcitn,-l:rrrrs. Scntlinq the sigtnatures [<rr comparison b, a lIandrrriting cxpcrt rnigh t causc dela)/, but, horvevcr, in orclcr to gir t' [air ()pp()rtunir\' t() J)r()\'c thcir respcctivc case, it ma1' bc ncccss;rIr. ,\s suclr, rhr,- in-rpuqrrerl orrlcr i: liab[e to bc sct asiclc ( 7 8 Accordinglr', the (.ir-il llcvision l)ctition is allorvccl bl,setting asidc thc impugncd ordcr datcd 11.01.2025 in I.r\.No.93 c>f 2025 in ().S.No.l2 of 2011 passcd bv thc lcarncd l)rl. Scnior Civil .fud.qe, Nlcdchal-Nlalkajgrri District at Nlcdchal. (ionscqucntlv, the I.A.No.93 ol 2025 in ().S.No..l 2 oF 2011 is allorvcd. No costs. Consequentlv, conncctcd miscellancous petirions rre close cl SD/. V, KAVITHA D PUTY REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// \ S CTION OFFICER To, '1 . The Principal Senior Civil Judge, MedchaltVtalkajgiri District, at Medchal 2. One CC to Mr. R ANURAG, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Mr. A SANJAY, Advocate [OPUCI 4. Two CD Copies HIGH COUTTT DATED: 1311012025 ORDER CRP.No.1512 of 2025 -IrlE S t1o ( ) JI B 4 n0lr tr6 z a { a r'AIC HEO Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is Allowed. @