The High Court · 2025

1. Sri Jagadamba Transformers, Rep. by its partners Smt. Nagarapu Shobha, Managing .Pg(ner and_Sri Nagarapu Rajeswara Swamy Haiing its i; Registered Offi-ce at _ Plot.No. 54,A- Ledp lnd.Estate, GalutaraFrararir Quthbullapur Mandal Hyderabad - 500072 (ii) Factory af . f_t , Sotfrwbst Shed, Plot.no.1, IDA Gandhinagal Near Sivaji Statue, Balanagar, Quthbullapur Mandal Hyderabad-500037.

2. Smt.Nagarapu Shoba, Wo. N.Rajeswara Swamv Aqed about 51 vears. Occ -- Managing fg$-e1_of No.'t R/o.H.No.12 -6 -2tB7,VivAk Nagar Xurltapity,- Hyderabad-500072

3. Sri. Nagarapu Rajeswara 9*qryV., S/o. Late.N.Venkata Narasiah Aged about 56 years, Occ. Partner of No.'1 R/o.H.N o.12-6-2187, Vivek Nagar fJtataptty, Hyderabad-500072 ...RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS lA NO: 1 oF 2023 Petition under section.l.5-1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, ffii;s; b-ourt..ay be preased to stay all turther proceedinos in o s. No.204 ;i rbrt";ih" fire of the , Addr District and sessions Judge, Meichar-Markajigiri or.tri.r-"i rtr"jchar, incruding the stay of the ;,,il,;ifi Hlil:;,',.. oy tn6 is I i" ti." l"i".J 1,.ii.", rl"oj* ii#"!,, "l CIVIL REVISIO N PETITIONN O:2425 O F 2023 Petition Under Arlicre 227 0f the constitution of rndia against the order dated 0710812023 passed 1.A.No.574 0f 2023 in o.s.ru".zoq of 20220n the fire of the the il Addt Drstrict and S"ssr.ons LrJg", il"o.nrt_Matkajsiri district, at fi:::r:l Between: 1 2 Sri Jalasutram Tilak. S/o.. Sri J.L.N Sastry Aged about 57 years, Occ. tmployee R/o.FIat.No ro+, .Kamalhi niii6ni,vrlit*ari Enctave, Gandhi Nagar Road. Ba ta nasar. o uthd;ii;il;' il""rirL ulloJrload_500037 Smt. Jalasutram Sarada w/o Sri J.Tilak, Aged about 45 years, Occ. Business. R/o.FlatNo. l04 Kamasiri neiioencv-pjti,i;; H".il; Gandhi Nagar Road, Batanasa r, Quthbu[apur Ma noai Hyi,eia6Ii:50bij57,, ...REVISION PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS AND 1 2 J Sri Jagadamba Transformers, Rep. by its partners Smt. Nagarapu Shobha, Managing partner and Sri Nagarapu nrlu.*"i"-S*Irv Having its: i) Registered Offic6 at . pfot.il". b+rq_L# tnd Estate, Galuta.ramaram e u-thbultapu r Mandai nvJ"rroroliSoozz ,) l-actory at : F-'1, Sothwest Shed, plot.no 1, f Oe CrnOninrgar, Near Sivaii , i'|vu'I v var' Statue, Batanagar, euthbulapur rvtanoaL iyierruJ:idooe?]- Smt.Nagarapu Shoba. Wo.N.Rajeswara Swamy Aged about 51 years, Occ. HffSgff.l;#;;ror No 1 R/o Hft; ii-o'-2"i6;:'\iiG'k-ri,sar Kukaiaprry p.*:f i?J'j,fl i"r'#?'&'-::i{,".1,:*.."1?t_yifl",f #fl K:lii,i??:,:',ff : ,RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS lA NO: 2 oF 2023 Petition under section 1.51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited in support ot ttre petitiJn]i#i;il b-ourt may be pteased to Stay a'rurtherproceedinosinoS-No_.204;irbr;;;i;"tfireoftherrAddr Districtand Sessions Judge, Mejchat-Matkajigiri Ol.r"i-ri ir,i"icnat, inctuding the Stav of the ;,,il,1*Hl:l:1",,*. ov tn6ts[, in il;l;t;*.i or Justice, plnding disposar lA NO: 1 oF 2023 Petition under Sectioa 1s1..cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support ot tne peirtio'n, inliign court may be preased to drspense wirh rhe fitino of tl:^9e-tifi;d oitn. Decree and Order dt.07_08_ 2023 passed in I.R.No.6zl of 2023 in o.s.liri.z-oe"oizozzpassed by the Hon,bre , Addt. District and Sessions "ruOge, MJJai Ir,'rinr;gi..i district, at Medchat, rn the interest of justice. "ofy Counsel for the petitioners in both C.R.p.s: SRI K JAMALI Gounsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR C.R.P. No s.2 405 and 2 425 of 2023 COMMON o RDER: Since, these Civil Revision petitions arise between the sarre partic's ard are di.ected agai.st the commo, orrrer dated 07-08-2023 passed in I.A.Nos.5l2 and 574 of 2023 in O.S.No.204 <tt' 2022 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judgc. Nlcdcha I-Malkajgiri District at Medchal, they arc hcing dispt,sed ol by this common order.

2. l'he Revision petitioners herein are respondents in the unclerlyi,g Inrcrlocurory Applications and plaintiftb in the suit filed 1'or rccovcr-\, ol'rnoney. i. [n the suh jecl suit, the respondents herein filed LA.No.5 l2 ol 2023 and I.,{.No.574 ol l0l3 under Seoion l5l C.p.C. r/w Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to reopen the suit and to send Ex.A-ll along rvith I:xs.A_4 to z\_6, A_g, A_10 and A_17 to the Forcusic Sciencc [_aborator.y (FSL), Hyderabad to be compaled by the handwriting Expert to give opinion about the disputed signature on Ex.A- I l. ! 2

4. The said underlying Interlocutory Applications were opposed by the petitioners herein by filing counter claiming that since, the applications filed by the respondents herein earlier to receive expert opinion issued b5, Truth Labs having been rejccted by the Court, by observing that the said report has been obtainecl by respondent themselves pending the suit without the knowledge of the petitioners herein, the respondents herein havc' come up with the underlying Interlocutory Applications

5. The petitioners herein fufther contended that thc respondents have filed the underlying Interlocutory Applications before the trial Court only to get orders in dnlr 6un,,". to deprivc the petitioners lrom recovering the amounts due in the suit fllccl by thenr

6. Petitioners further contend that since.the earlier applications filed by the respondents to receive the expert opinion havine been dismissed vide I.A.Nos.416 and 417 of 2023, thc sarne would operate as res judicata

7. The triat Court by considering the underlying Interlocutor)' Applications filed by the respondents under Section .15 oi thc lndian E1!-dence Act requesting to reopen the suit and to send the 3 documents to FSL lor comparison and also taking note of the fact that the respondents herein obtained an opinion flom the Truth Labs on their orvn earlier, however, noting that the petitioners herein are equally contesting the proceeding and vehemently disputing the handwriting on Ex.A_ I l, had observed that the since. said document has come from the custody of the petitioners/plaintitls, the same cannot override the right of the other party. The trial Cour-t also rook note of the objection of the petitioners herc'in as to the said document Ex.A_ I I having been marked withour anl,objecrion 1br the respondents herein to file thc underly,ing Interlocutorv Applications seeking fbr sending the same to IrSL for.comparison, helcl that since, the respondents are disputing rhe documcnts, burden belng on them and if they fail to attack the docuurent and disprove the handwr.iting, ther.e is every likelihood of accepting the document, which would cause loss to the respondents. accordingly, accepted the contentions of the respondents in liling the r-rrrder.lying Inrerlocutory Applications. Thus, the trial (toun had allowed the underlying Interlocutory Applications. 4

8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

9. On behalf of the petitioners, it is vehernently contended that the trial Court ought not to have allowed the underlying Interlocutory Applications and that too when the suit is posted fol arguments, as the intentior-r ol the respondents herein is ouly' to drag on the matter; and that the respondents herein have not raised any objection to Ex.A-ll when the sarne is being markcd. lt is to be noted that the trial Court taking note of the lact that Ex.A-I1 is a docurnent thal has been marked by the petitioners herein rvhile thc lcspondents are disputing the genuineness of the sarne, the burden being on them to disprove the colrcctness o[ the said document and also taking note of the lact that the respondents hercin having fited applications earlier of obtaining report from the Truth Labs and the said applications having been dismissed by the Court on the ground that the said report "vas obtained by the respondents themselves without the knowledge of the petitioners herein, had found it appropriate to allorv the underlying Interlocutory Applications permitting the respondents herein ro r.nrEx.A-i I along with Exs.A-5 to 4.-6, A-8, A-l0 7 5 and A- I 7 to F SL lbr cornparison of handwriting. .fhus, arguments advanced by the petition ers of re s juclicata would not I0. F urthcr, the trial Court b_v exercising the discretionary power cor.rlbrred on it had allowed the [nterlocutory Applications. which in the only resulr in the C_.ourt considered view of this Crturl, would lrriving at a right conclusion while adjudicatin-u the suit filed by the petitioners lor recovery of the amount lron r the respondents. The nrere fact of thr, respondents filing applicrrrions a1 the time of argurnents \.r,ould not by itself a for the petitioner.s to f-eel aggrieved by the action of the trial Court in allou,ing the said applications and pcrrnitting the respondents to send the :rlirresaid docurnents Lo F_SL for comparison rvith other. adnritted Exhibits, as such opinion fumished by the FSL aurhoriries would only result in the Court arriving at a right decision. reason I l. In view ol'the above, this Court is of the view that the order of the trial Court cannot be said to be enoneous or suffering fi'om any infir',rity warranting interf-erence by this court in 6 exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Afticle Z2l ol the Constitution of India.

12. Therefore, these Civil Revision petitions are devoid ol merit and are accordingly dismissed. No costs

13. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed Sd/- S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO SISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. ll Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri district, at Medchal 2. One CC to SRI K JAMALI Advocate [OPUC] J" Two CD Copies SS/PSL Yt- 'l HIGH COURT DATED:1310612025 COMMON ORDER CRP.Nos.2405 & 2425 of 2023 .1 B lrlE Si4 ,r€ ] ) .\ ); 2 B AUE 2025 /) .^ ;'!'1f:\t;' .- t - -,,' . DISMISSING BOTH THE C.R.P.s WITHOUT COSTS 6-e@ Y{- --pft6'