The High Court · 2025

...PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS AND Guda Mahipal Reddv,S/o. Raiireddy, Age.38 years, Occ: Business' Villa{e of Jaipur Mandal, Mancherial District' -Cingipalti ...RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under section 151 of c.P.c-, praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pieaseO to grant interim stay of ail further proceedings in O'S'No-5-0 of 2019 on [he fite of C-ourt of Junior Civil Judge -cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class At C hen n ur. Counsel for the Petitioners :SRI LAXMALLA SANDEEP Counsel for the ResPondent :SRI A. SAMPATH KUMAR The Court made the following : ORDER ':, t THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR CTVIL REVTSION PETITION No.3429 of 2024 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order 23-09-2024 passed 1n I.A.No.318 of 2023 in O.S.No.SO of 2019 on the hle of the learned Junior Civil Judge cLlm Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Chennur, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioners _ defendants.

2. Heard Sri Laxma1la Sandeep, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Thimmaraju Ramchandar Rao, learned counsel representing Sri A. Sampath Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Perused the record.

3. The petitioners and respondent in the present Civil Revision Petition are defendarts Nos. I and 2 and plaintiff respectively in O.S.No.SO of 2Ol9 pending on the file of NVSK,J C.R.P.No.3429 of 2024 2 the learned Junior Civil Judge Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Chennur.

4. The facts in brief as stated are that the respondent/ plaintiff hled a suit in O.S.No.SO of 2Ol9 for recovery of money and the suit was coming up for arguments. At that time, the petitioners / defendants submitted that the petitioners have signed on the promissory-note after the limitation period, which the petitioners could not tell to their counsel before trial Court and in view of the same, learned counsel for petitioners before the trial Court did not represent the same before the Court at the time of trial. As there was no representation, when the suit was called for the evidence of defendants, the evidence of defendants was closed and the suit was posted for arguments on 10.08.2023. Thereafter, the petitioners / defendants have hied I.A.No.318 of 2023 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act r/w. Section 151 of CPC., wherein it is stated that the petitioners obtained loan from the respondent / plaintiff by executing a Demand .ryF NVSK,J C.R.P.No.3429 of 2024 J Promissory Note on IL.l2.2Ol6 in favour of plaintiff and recently noticed that the signatures on the Demand Promissory Note was before the date of the executed document ald in fact the petitioners never execrlted aly document in favour of the respondent on the said date of the document. In view of the sarne, petitioners filed the aJoresaid I.A. requesting to send the document for comparison and age of signatures of the petitioners along with admitted signatures available on Vakalath in the suit to the Handwriting Expert, Forensic Science Laboratories, Red Hills, Hyderabad for report.

5. Lealned counsel appearing for the respondent / piaintiff before the trial Court has filed a counter denying the allegations submitted that while recording the evidence before the learned trial Court the petitioners / defendants admitted the execution of the promissory note, as such there is no issue with respect to the execution of promissory note by the petitioners. By way of hling the present petition the petitioners are making NVSK,J C.R.P.No.3429 of 2024 4 contradictory statements than that of the contents of their depositions and the petitioners are estopped from claiming that they have not executed the promissory note as the same is contraty to their depositions. Eventually, learned trial Court dismissed the petition.

6. Learned trial Court upon hearing both sides observed that on a perusal of the docket order dated

27.04.2023 would revea-l that both the counsels were present on the said date and the further evidence of defendants was closed as the counsel for petitioners / defendants reported no further evidence. The present I.A. is hled to reopen the case for further evidence of the defendants to adduce the evidence of Handwriting Expert along with I.A.No.319 of 2023 which was liled to compare the signatr-rres of the petitioners with the admitted signatures on the Vakaiath, written statement and other documents liled in the suit and also for the report regarding the age of the signature on promissory note, dated ll.12.2016. The said I.A.No.319 of 2O2i was ir.ffi '*=-27 NVSK,J C.R.P.No.3429 oI2024 ) dismissed. As the I.A.No.31g f 2023 is pre-matured it is not maintainable and the arne was a,lso dismissed. rn I.A.No.318 of 2023, Aggrieved by the said orde petitioners filed the present Ci 'il Revision Petition. 7" Learned counsel appe g for the respondent / plaintiff has filed counter stating that when the suit was coming for arguments the petitioners / defendants fired two applications vide I.A.Nos.31B ald 319 of 2023 with a prayer to reopen the case for defendants, evidence and to compare the signatures of the petitioners with the admitted signatures on the Vakalath, written statement and other documents hied in the suit and a_1so for the report regarding the age of the signature on promissory note, dated 1I.12.2OL6 respectively. After contest both the LAs. were dismissed on 23.Og.2O24 on merits by separate orders and that the petitioners have challenged only one I.A. i.e., I.A.No.31g of 2023 by filing the present Civil Revision petition but has not challenged the order in I.A,No.319 of 2023. NVSK,J C.R.P.No.3429 of 2024 6 8 A copy of order in I.A.No.319 of 2023 is also hled along with counter, wherein learned counsel refers to paragraph No.7 (iii) which reads as follows: "7(iii). The signature of ang partA can be send to the Expert onlg uthen the partg denies the same, but in the present cese on hand duing the cross- examination both the petitioners/ defendants categoricallg aaiittea that the signatures on Ex.Al belongs to them, as such there is no dispute regarding the execution of Ex.Al bg the petitioners/ defendhnts herein and further os per the ratio lqid doun bg Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Bgalla Deoadas us. Siaapuram Ro,rnrr Yogesuara Rao the present petition is not maintainable to the extent of comp(ffison of the signatures of petitioners/ defendants on Ex.Al tuith the Vakalth, written statement and other documents. " .:L g. On a perusal of impugned order, it would reveal that the learned trial Judge has rightly observed that the application is pre-mature and accordingly, dismissed the I 1 ! I I I I :.qr-'raf'- *F NVSK,.I C.R.P.No.3429 of 2024 l same. In view of the same, the impugned order is a reasoned order, well founded and it does not require ar_ry interference by this Court. Therefore, this Civil Revision Petition is 1iable to be dismissed.

10. Accordingly, this Civit Revision petition is dismissed There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed \ Sd/- S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ' !12 SECTION OFFICER To, I The court of Junior civir Judge -cum- Judiciar t\Iagistrate of First Class At Chennur

2. One CC to SRt. LAXMALLA SANDEEP Advocate tOpUCl 3 One CC to SRt A SAMPATH KUMAR Advocate tOpUCl 4. Two CD Copies pcsd/PSI. [ +f 11 I HIGH COURT DATED:2410412025 ORDER CRP.No.3429 of 2024 -[HE s t4r oF e -) 16 SEP 2025 o^ .. a)ar - ..t, '' -t/ DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION ( u- D 6 €