High Court · 2025

1. Smt. D. Amucla, W/o. D. Venkat Reddy, aged about 50 years, Occ. House Hold, R/ o. 77-8-757 / A, Road No.9, Kranthinagar, Kothapet, Hyderabad. ..Respondents/ Petitioner/ Plainti f f 2. Mr. C.S. Ramchander, S/o. Kistaiah, aged about 43 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H. No. 13-06-457/26, Shivabagh, Gudimalkapur, Mehadipatnam, Hyderabad. ...Respondent/ Respondent No.2/ Defendant No. 2 IA NO: 7 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statecl in the affidavit filec{ in support of the petitiory the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of operation of Order dated 25-10-2024 in I.A.No.9L6 ot2O24 in O.S.No. 952 of 2076 on the file of the Court of the V Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, pending disposal of the above Revision petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: Smt. D.Padmavathi Counsel for the Responclents: Sri A.Ananthsen Reddy. The Court made the following: ORDER THE; HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY CI'I'TL REVISION PETITION No.4126 of 2024 ORDER: The pres,:nt rlivil Revision Petition is frled by the petitioner under Article 227 ol thr: Constitution of India assailing the order dated

25.10.2024 in I.A..'{o.916 of 2024 in O.S.No.952 of 2OL6 frassed by the V Additional Iristrict Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. IYagar.

2. Heard Mr. J.C. Francis, learned counsel, representing Ms. D. Padtnavathi, learned counsel for the petition'er and Mr. D. Anikett' Rerldy, learned counsel, representing Mr' ,'\. Ananthsen Reddy, learner: cortnsel for the respondents.

3. Vi.de thr. irrLpugned order, the Trial Court has allowed the petition frled by the respondents under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 18712, seeking for expert opinion so far as the sigrratures of the petitiorrer is concerned which is reflected in rnany of the <iocuments exhibit ed in the trial, and whereas, a categorical denial is made by the p :titi,rner of the sarne not being executed by her.

4. The con, enlion of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the order pas,'ed .ry the Trial Court so far as asking the petitioner to provide the p -esent haldwriting and signature is not justified and proper, a5 if r:an prejudice the interest of the petitioner in the frnal Page Z of 4 outcome of the Suit. It was further contented that even otherwise the said I.A. should not had been entertained by the Tria1 Court, as it is hit by RuIe 55 of the Civil Rules of Practice which states that in the event of there being multiple reliefs, there has to be a separate application for each distinct prayer.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, opposing the Revision Petition submitted that it is a case where as a consequence of the order passed by the Trial Court, the respondents have already given specimen signature as also the handwriting and the documents are now in the process of being forwarded to the handwriting expert for his opinion. It was further submitted that the necessity for hling of said I.A. was only because of the categorical denial of the signatures by the petitioner before the Trial Court in the Original Suit and the documents relied upon by the petitioner.

6. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusa-l of records, particularly considering the contents of the aJfrdavit and also taking note of the impugned order, this Court does not find any multiple reliefs sought for by the respondents herein before the Tria,l Court. As the reliefs in nutshell was seeking for an expert opinion so far as the signatures of the petitioner as compared to the signatures that which is reflected in ttrc documents exhibited i : i I i I before the Trial (lourt. A1l these being incidental in nature, ttre objection of tl e petitioner so far as RuIe 55 of the Civil Rules of Practice is con::ern:d may not be available in the present case'

7. So far as; the, requirement of the sending present -'ignatures of ' the petitioner 1.: the handwriting expert opinion is concerned, it is only for comparison of the signatures and handwriting of the petitioner in the documents v,hich has already been exhibited before the Trial Court.

8. This Cou:t d.oes not find any prejudice to be caused so far as the i interest of the 'tetilioner is concerned, as in the event of any finding by the expert opirLion so far as there being deviation and discrepancy in the handwriti:-Lg cf the petitioner, which is taken in the Court in compliance of the impugrred order and that which is reflected in the documents exlribited, the same may go in favour of the petitioner. Thus, at ttris jr-Lncture, this Court is of the opinion that no prejudice as such would b,:, carsed in the event the impugned order is complied with. Moreover', the expert opinion may help either of the parties to substantiate tlLeir :ontentions before the Trial Court in respect of their claims.

9. Hence, tlLis ()ourt does not hnd any strong case marle out by the petitioner anrl the Revision Petition accordingly stands rejected. However, it is made clear that the observafions rnade by this Court in this Revision Petition wor.rld not corne in the way of the Trial Court while deciding the Original Suit on merits. It is also made clear that under no circumstances the Trial Court be influenced by this order. No costs.

10. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. //rRUE coPv// sD/- N.SRIHARI REGISTRAR ONOFFICER 'o'r. ,n" V Additional District Jutlge' Ranga Reddy-District at L'B' Nagar' i. o"; cb-to s-t. D Pa'rmavatfii Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri e'a"u"ittt"" Redcly' Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies ICK u HIGHCOURT ,,,1. 1 i l L j DATED.l3/07/202:. ORDER CRP.No.4126 ot20:;4 Relecting the C.R.I]. wilhout costs. 6 $ ,1,c ./,/ iY/i.l 0 I t) \ .:\ ,,'.,-,, \(=?g: iPl2[25 3 ! * ,t$