Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
D.S.Abdul Jaleel vs Mogal Allabakash Baig on 7 August, 2025
APHC010399022025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3329]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1979/2025
Between:
1. D.S.ABDUL JALEEL, S/O.NABI SAB AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
OCC-RETIRED TEACHER R/O.D.NO.13/65, MAHAMMADPURA
STREET RAYACHOTY MUNICIPALITY, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT
ANDHRA PRADESH
2. D.S.JAKIRABEE @ ZAKEERA BEGUM (DIED), PER L.RS.
3. D.S.YAKUB MEAH, S/O.NABI SAB AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
OCC-BUSINESS R/O.D.NO.11/24, MAHAMMADPURA STREET
RAYACHOTY, ANNAMAMMA DISTRICT, AP
4. D.S.HASMATH BEGUM, W/O.YAKUB MEAH AGED ABOUT 50
YEARS, OCC- HOUSEWIFE R/O.D.NO.11/25, MAHAMMADPURA
STREET RAYACHOTY MUNICIPALITY, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT
ANDHRA PRADESH.
5. D.S.ABDUL VAKEEL @ VAKIL, S/O.D.S.ABDUL JALEEL, AGED 33
YEARS R/O.D.NO.13/65, MAHAMMADPURA STREET
RAYACHOTY MUNICIPALITY, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT ANDHRA
PRADESH
6. D.S.MAHAMMAD ADIL, S/O.D.S.ABDUL JALEEL AGED ABOUT
28 YEARS, OCC- STUDENT R/O.D.NO.13/65, MAHAMMADPURA
STREET RAYACHOTY MUNICIPALITY, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT
ANDHRA PRADESH
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. MOGAL ALLABAKASH BAIG, S/o.lmam Baig, aged 67 years, Occ-
Business, R/o.T.Sundupalli Road Rayachoty Municipality,
Annamayya District Andhra Pradesh
...RESPONDENT
The Court made the following Order:-
1. The civil revision petition is filed for following relief:-
"may be pleased to the above named petitioner begs to present the above revision questioning docket order dated 28-08-2024 passed in I.A.No. 578/2024 in O.S.No.2 of 2017 on the file of the court of the V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty, Annamayya District, Andhra Pradesh...
2. This present Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the docket order dated 28.08.2024 passed in I.A. No. 578 of 2024 in O.S. No. 2 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty, Annamayya District. The revision petitioners herein are the defendants and the respondents herein are the plaintiffs in the suit. The parties to this civil revision petition will hereinafter will be referred to as described before the trial court for the sake of convenience.
3. The petitioners/defendants filed the I.A. No. 578 of 2024 before the court below under Sections 39, 41, 45, and 49 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (Indian Evidence Act), seeking to send Ex.A1 and Ex.B3 to the Andhra Pradesh State Forensic Science Laboratory, Mangalagiri, Vijayawada, to get an expert opinion.
4. The respondent/plaintiff filed a counter affidavit in the suit denying the contentions of the petitioners/defendants wherein it is stated as follows:-
It is submitted that the evidence District Registrar, Kadapa gave his evidence marked as the subject document Ex.XI and also admitted Ex.XI is valid documents and might have been sold by stamp vender G.Kodandapani. Hence, the allegation in the petition and affidavit are false. It is also admitted by the district registrar, Kadapa that the valid period of the sales register is only 12 years and so Ex.XI is not valid. The district registrar has not given any evidence Ex.B3 i.e., blank papers and cannot be sent to expert along with Ex.A1. The evidence of B.W1 is very clear that he admitted signature on Ex.A1 and so the space alignment in Ex.A1 cannot be considered and so also fabrication of contents in Ex.A1 in the blank stamp papers in Ex.B3 is not possible. Hence the petition has no bonafides and only the dragon the matter.
5. The issue for determination by the court below is whether the plaintiff fabricated the agreement of sale which is marked as Ex.A1 by using blank signed non-judicial (N.J.) stamp papers, as alleged by the defendants due to space alignment of the writings was observed in Ex.A1. It is submitted that to establish this claim, it is necessary to send Ex.A1 to the Andhra Pradesh Forensic Science Laboratory (APFSL), Mangalagiri, for expert opinion.
6. The defendants/petitioners further submitted that Ex.B3 is a photocopy of the blank signed N.J. stamp papers bearing the signatures of their father, mother, paternal uncle, and aunt, which was retained by them at the time of handing over the original blank signed N.J. stamps to the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendants prayed that the Agreement of sale, Ex.A1 allegedly prepared using the blank signed N.J. stamps with manipulated space alignment shall be referred to the APFSL along with Ex.B3 for expert opinion.
7 The learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants vehemently contended that, in the absence of any expert opinion from the Andhra Pradesh Forensic Science Laboratory (APFSL), particularly in view of the allegations regarding blank signed N.J stamp papers and the alignment of the writings, the court below cannot properly determine the dispute between the parties. Therefore, the dismissal of the interlocutory application by the court below is contrary to law.
8. The relevant portion of the order passed by the court below, which is extracted hereunder, is intended to aid in the proper understanding of the reasoning of the court:
"To find out whether the space alignment of writings are adjusted or not in the N.J.stamps used for engrossing the agreement of sale Ex.A1 with the help of Photostat copy of blank signed N.J stamps Ex.B3 sending the said documents for expert opinion to the APfSL, Mangalagiri is found not necessary. Because with the help of evidence available on record, so also with the naked eye, the same can be found out. As stated supra, plaintiff side has completed their evidence by examining Pws.1 to 4 and marking the documents Exs. A1 to A22. Likewise, the defendants side has also examined Dws. 1 and 2 including the District Registrar and marked Exs.B1 to B3 and Ex.A1. Having considered the said evidence adduced by both the side, this court is of the opinion that ample evidence is available on record to find out whether the agreement of sale Ex.A1 is a fabricated one or not. In the said circumstances, sending the agreement of sale (Ex.A1) to the expert opinion is not at all required".
9. On perusal of the order passed by the court below, as extracted above, it is evident that the court, based on the evidence put forth by the parties in the suit, held that the issue/claim of the defendants can be determined based on the documents which are marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A22 and Ex.B3 to Ex.X1. It was also held that there is no need for any expert opinion as prayed in this application by the defendants, since the court below is able to decide the issue based on the evidence already placed on record by the parties. It is a settled principle of law that, as long as the court below is able to decide the issue or dispute based on the evidence brought on record by the parties, without requiring the assistance of an expert opinion, the court below should allowed to proceed further and rejection of claim of the defendants is well within its power to proceed and determine the issue accordingly. In the present case, the court below rightly observed that, based on the evidence available on record, it can determine the issue/dispute between the parties without seeking for an expert opinion, and such observation/conclusion are in accordance with law. Therefore, this court do not find any merits to interfere with the impugned order dated 28.08.2024 passed in I.A. No. 578 of 2024 in O.S. No. 2 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty, Annamayya District. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 07.08.2025 klk 122 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA C.R.P.NO: 1979 of 2025 07.08.2025 klk