Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kalapala Subba Rao, vs Kamma Pardha Saradhi, on 1 August, 2025
Author: K Suresh Reddy
Bench: K Suresh Reddy
APHC010022252025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3239]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 703/2025
Between:
1. KALAPALA SUBBA RAO,, S/O. LATE MADHAVAYYA, AGED ABOUT
73 YEARS, OCC RETD TEACHER, R/O. D.NO.17-154,
D.NO.17
SATYANARAYANAPURAM VILLAGE, DENDULUR MANDAL, WEST
GODAVARI DISTRICT, A.P
...PETITIONER
AND
1. KAMMA PARDHA SARADHI, S/o. Peda Venkata Ratnam, Ageda about
30 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o. D.No.2
D.No.2-24,
24, Challachintalapudi Village,
Denduluru Mandal, West Godavari District, A.P
...RESPONDENT
Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to pleased to allow the CRP by setting aside the order dated 22.10.2024 passed in. lA No. 263 of 2022 in OS No.30 of 2019 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Division) at Eluru, WestWest Godavari District by enabling the Petitioner to get the signatures compared by Government Forensic laboratory Vijayawada IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to stay of all further proceedings in O.S No.30 of 2019 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Division) at Eluru, West Godavari District pending disposal of this C.R.P. No. 703 of 2025 Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. A S NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent:
1. MADHAVA RAO NALLURI The Court made the following ORDER:
Questioning the order dt. 22.10.2024 passed in I.A.No.263/2022 in O.S.No.30/2019 by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Eluru, dismissing the said I.A., the petitioner filed present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. The respondent herein filed O.S.No.30/2019 for recovery of money on the basis of three promissory notes marked as Exs.A.1 to A.3. A.1 to A.3 promissory notes were executed on 05.08.2015. Subsequently, the defendant made endorsements making part payments on 30.07.2018 and the three endorsements were marked as Exs.A.4 to A.6. The petitioner is contesting the suit by filing written statement. He pleaded in his written statement contending that Exs.A.1 to A.3 are rank forgery.
3. During pendency of the suit, the petitioner filed I.A.No.263/2022, under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, seeking to send Exs.A.1 to A.6 to the Government Forensic Laboratory, Vijayawada, for comparison with the admitted signatures of the petitioner with the documents filed in O.S.No.26/2019 which are original Ration card and original Employee Pension I.D. card.
4. The respondent herein filed counter opposing the said I.A. After hearing both sides, the learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Eluru, dismissed the I.A. by way of impugned order.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that right from the stage of written statement, he has taken a stand that the suit promissory notes were forged. He further contended that to establish his defence, he has filed I.A.No.263/2022 seeking to send the said documents to the Government Forensic Laboratory to ascertain the genuineness of his signatures. As such, he requests this Court to allow the Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the impugned order.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the Civil Revision Petition contending that suit promissory notes are dated 05.08.2015, whereas Ration card is dated 21.06.2007 and the original Employee Pension I.D. card was dated much prior to 30.04.2006. As such, there is a long time gap between the suit promissory notes and the above documents. Hence, he sought to dismiss the present Civil Revision Petition.
7. This Court perused the entire material on record.
8. As seen from the record, the suit promissory notes are dated 05.08.2015 and the endorsements were dated 30.07.2018. Whereas, the documents sought to be compared were dated 21.06.2007 and earlier. As such, there is a long time gap between the admitted documents and Exs.A.1 to A.6. Hence, they cannot be tallied with each other in view of the long time gap. The petitioner has not filed any contemporaneous documents for comparison.
9. In view of the above, there are no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Eluru, in I.A.No.263/2022 in O.S.No.30/2019, dated 22.10.2024.
Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
__________________ K SURESH REDDY, J Date: 01.08.2025 MVA