Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRP/797/2020 of PUTTI KRISHNA MURTHY Vs PALLAPOTHU SUBBA RAO on 29 December 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 797/2020 Between: 1. PUTTI KRISHNA MURTHY, DIED 2.
APHC010115532020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 797/2020
Between:
1. PUTTI KRISHNA MURTHY, DIED
2. PUTTI KANAKA VADDIKASULU @ VADIKASULU, S/O KRISHNA
MURTHY,
AGED
ABOUT
YEARS,
CULTIVATION,
R/O
BYRAGIPALEM, H/O ARISEPALLI VILLAGE, BANDAR MANDAL
3. KUMBHA KANAKA NANCHARAMMA, W/O SATYANARAYANA, AGED
ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, R/O VANJARAMPADU, PEDDAPARUPUDI MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
4. PUTTI NAGESWARAMMA, W/O KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 72
YEARS, OCC.CULTIVATION, R/O BYRAGIPALEM, H/O ARISEPALLI
VILLAGE, BANDAR MANDAL.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. PALLAPOTHU SUBBA RAO, S/O VEER SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 54
YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, R/O BYRAGIPALEM H/O ARSEPALLI
VILLAGE, BANDAR MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
2. KOMMU KANKA NANCHARAMMA, W/O SATYANARAYANA, AGED
ABOUT
YEARS,
R/O
VANGARAMPADU,
PEDDAPARUPUDI
MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. THADIKONDA KOTESHWARA PRASAD
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. NARASIMHA RAO GUDISEVA
The Court made the following:
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 797/2020
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R:
1. The instant Civil Revision Petition has been preferred challenging an Order dated 20.02.2020 passed by the learned IX Additional District Judge, Machilipatnam, Krishna District in I.A.No.80 of 2019 in A.S.No.76 of 2017.
2. Brief facts of the matter are that – the Respondent No.1 being the Plaintiff filed a Suit vide O.S.No.144 of 2010 for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 29.08.2009 against the present Petitioners/Defendants on the file of learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam. The said suit was decreed on 22.09.2017, against which, an appeal was preferred before the learned Appellate Court i.e., IX Additional District Judge, Machilipatnam. During pendency of the Appeal, the present Petitioners being Appellants, filed an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking an Order to send the Agreement of sale dated 29.08.2009 to the Handwriting Expert, to decide whether the signature of 2nd Petitioner and Thumb mark of his father (1st petitioner) on the Agreement of Sale, are genuine or not. Learned Appellate Court has turned down their prayer. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition.
3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submit that the impugned Order passed by the learned Court below is illegal and improper. He submits that the present Petitioners being Defendants have already pleaded before the learned Trial Court that the signatures of 2nd Petitioner and Thumb marks of 1st Petitioner appearing in the impugned Agreement are forged, but due to ill-advise, the Defendants could not file an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, before the learned Trial Judge. He further submits that to dispose of the Appeal, the agreement required to be sent to the Expert to verify the signature and thumb impression of the Defendants. He further submits that the learned
Court below has failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of this case and came to an erroneous finding and therefore, the impugned Order is required to be set aside.
4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents submit that the Petitioners being Defendants have not taken proper step before the learned Trial Court, when the suit was pending. He further submits that the Appeal is pending since long time. The Appeal was preferred in the year 2017 and when it was matured for hearing in the year 2019, the impugned application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act has been filed. He further submits that the intention of the Petitioners herein is only to delay the proceedings. There are no reasons to entertain the present petition. He further submits that at present, the 1st respondent has already been expired, thus, the application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be entertained.
5. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned Order passed by the learned Court below.
6. In deciding an Application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, at the stage of Appeal, the learned Appellate court has opined that the Application was filed at a belated stage. Moreover, the Petitioners/Defendants have failed to raise the plea before the learned Trial Court. It is further observed by the learned Appellate Court that there is no reason assigned in the application why the Defendants/Appellants were silent for two years to file the petition under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act.
7. On considering the entire fact, it appears that the present Petitioners being Defendants have contested the suit by filing Written Statement. In the Written Statement, they have challenged their signatures and thumb impressions over the impugned agreement for sale, but such defence pleaded in the Written Statement was never intended to be proved by the Defendants during the trial.
Further it appears that the suit was decreed on contest, thereby, the Defendants’ plea in the Written Statement filed before the learned Trial Court not proved. Now, during pendency of the Appeal, Defendants have not assigned any reason why their application should be entertained, after so many years from the date of Decree. However, the reason assigned by the Court below regarding rejection of the application appears to be not so illegal to interfere with. Hence, I find no reason to entertain the instant Civil Revision Petition.
8. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, without costs.
The interim orders, if any, granted earlier, shall stand vacated.
Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA KS Dated:30-12-2025.
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.797 OF 2020
DATED:30.12.2025.
KS