The High Court · 2025

...Respondents/Defendants ,/ lA NO: 't OF 2024 Petition underr llection 151 CPC praying that in the circumstrances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be 1:leased to stay all further proceedings; in O.S No.13 of 2017 on the file of the Princrpal District and Sessions Judge Cou'1. Suryapet. Counsel for the Petitioner :Sri Pasnooru Ananth Aathreyasa Counsel for the Respondent No.7: Smt. V Dyumani Counsel for the Respondents No.8 : Sri Rama Mohan Palanki Counsel for Respondent No.4 and Respondent No.5: The Court made the following: ORDER l l I I I 1 I i C THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI c.R.P.NO. 4ol29 ol 2o24 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition has been hled under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 29.11.2024 in I.A.No.1019 12024 in O'S'No'13/2O17 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Suryapet'

2. Brief facts leading to the liling of the present Civil Revision Petition are that the Suit was l-rled by the petitioner herein along with another person for declaration of sale deeds dated 17.10.2013, i 1.08'2014 and 07 'O8'2O14 executed in favour of the defendants No'4 to 6 as null and void and for recovery of possession over the suit schedule property The defendants have filed their written statement on 28 'O7 '2017 referring to the minutes and resolutions dated 17 'O2 '2014 ' 06.O8.2O 14 duly authorizing Mr' R'Nageshwara Rao' as Secretary to the Society, to cornplete the registration formalities in favour of defendants No 4 and 5 and consequentiy' that the sale deeds dated 07.08.2014 and 11 08'2014 were executed for avalidsaleconsideration.Thereafter,theevidenceofthe plaintiffs were recorded and during the evidence of the \ I 2 TIIID,J cRP.No. .tO29 of 2024 defendants, the defendant No.8, who is the GPA h rlder of defendants lJ,r.4 and 5, has given evidence and got marked documents as Exhibits B1 to 834. The documents urere filed on

74.04.2024 Thereafter, the plaintiffs; have hled I.A.No.10l912024, denying the signatures t,f plaintiff/ pet i1i,)ner on Exs.B4 and E}5 and alleged that [hey are not pertainine to the petitioner and that they were forgr:d ones. It was furthr: r submitted that the petitioner had der Lied the same ir-r the cross examination by DWl and in order lo ascertain as to u,hether the said documents were forged or not, he requested tht: Court to send the documents Exs.B4 anr'l 85 for expert opinron along with the petitioner's admitted signatures. The responclents have filed a counter afhdavit subtnittinll that in the written statement, there was reference to the rcsrtlutions and the petit oner has not raised objection at any poinl. of time and that the objection is now being raised at the fag-enC of the suit only to rlelay the disposal of the suit. The tria I Court dismissed thr: application by observing that no u se[u1 lrurpose would be sen'ed to the petitioner even if the expert opin.on is in his favour, since the petitioner has kept quiet abor-rt these documents si;rce 2O1 4 when the documents were :rllegedly signed by thr petitioner. It was further observed by th: Court }*" ./ 3 TMD,J c.RI.No. .kt29 oJ 2024 that the petitioner ailegedly signed on Exs.B4 and 85 in the year 2OI4 and if the admitted signatures were obtained now, invariably there will be variation in the strokes of the signature. Challenging the said order, this Civil Revision. Petition has been frled.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the written statement was filed in the year 2077, there was a reference only to the resolution dated 17 .O2.2O14 ard there was no reference to resolution dated 09 .O2.2O 14 and further that no documents were filed along with the written statement. It is submitted that only when the documents were filed as evidence during the course of the examination of the defendants in August 2024, tlr.e petitioner had the occasion to go through the same and therefore hled this application for sending them for expert opinion. He therefore, prayed that order in I.A.No.1019 of 2024, dated 29.11.2024 be set aside and the Court be directed to send his signatures along with Ex.B4 and B5 for expert opinion.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents/defendalts, however, objected to the same and submitted that even though the written statement was hled in the year 2Ol7 ' tl:e petitioner \/ 4 TMD,J CRP.No. .4029 of 2024 has not chost:n to hle any rejoinder to the same and ras hled this applica tr on only to drag on the matter since the issue was clearly in [av,rur of the defendants.

5. [{ avir-rg regard to the rival contentions rtnd the materlai on recorcl, this Court finds that the suit was fil:d in the year 2077 zLrcl the written statement was also hled imnrediately thereafter Ad mittedly, there is a reference to the re solution dated 17 .0'.1,.20 14 in the written statement and the p 3titioner has not der-ried the same. It is also pertinent to note lhat the said document u.as not hled along with the written st atement and they w,3r-(r produced before the trial Court onlv du ring the time of rlarkrng of the documents on behalf of the respondents. Ex.B4 is 1.he :-esolution dated 09.02.2014 which was rrot even referred to in '-he written statement and it is only the resolution dated 17.O2.11O14 w.hich is referred to in the written statlrment.

6. A si obser-ved by the Principal and District Sie ssions Judge, Surl'aJret, the signatures of the petitioner now r.fter ten years, malr n,rt tally with the signatures on Exs.B4 and 85, but admittedly, tlr,:re must have been some other signature.s of the petitioner during the relevant period of time for comparison and therefore, th Ls; Court is of the opinion that the o rder in I I I I I 5 TMD.J cRP.No- 4029 o! 2024 I.A.No.1019 ol 2024 needs to be set aside and the Principal and District Sessions Judge, is directed to veri$r if there are any other documents during the relevant period of time on which the admitted signatures of the petitioner are available and send the documents along with Exs.B4 and 85 for expert opinion' 7 . Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed' There shall be no order as to costs.

8. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition, shall stand closed. SD'- L.VIJAYA LAXMI NSSISTEXT REGISTRAR ,/TRUE COPY'/ SECTION OFFICER To,

1. 2 4 The Principal District Judge Court Suryapet one CC to Sri Pasnooru "n'iit il ;; io smt v Dvyl3niii:1,""T:Xt?:y:l One CC to Sri Rama Mohar Two CD CoPies ropucl n'if'njvasa'Advocate toPUCl ADI(PSL Y^- I I I i HIGH COURT DATED:2710212025 i ORDER CRP.No.4029 of 2024 t) o t ({"; k 1/ R,R u0z5 * Oc JiPT TCH 6O { * ALLOWING THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS 1^.fd Y+ (t't\a