CRP/3857/2025 of Smt. Satyavathi Katragadda Vs Ramesh Gaikwad on 31 December 2025

ORDER:

Heard Mr.B.Vamshidhar Reddy, leamed counsel fbr the petitioner in both the civil revision petitions. Perused the record.

2. These are the two civi[ revision petitions which has been filed against the orders passcd by Ill Additional Chicf Judge, City Civil Couft, Hyderabad. C.R.P.No.3857 oI 2025 is filed challenging order dated 19.08.2025 inI.A.No.770 of 2025 inO.S.No.894 of 2011;C.R.P.No.4116 of 2025 is filed challenging the order dated 06.10.2025 in I.A.No.1243 of 2025 in O.S.No.894 of 2011

3. Vide the impugned order, learned lll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court dismissed I.A.No.770 of 2025 in O.S.No.894 of 2017 which is a suit for rec,overy and has rejected I.A. filed under Section 45 of lndian Evidence Act read with Section 151 of C.P.C., s< :king to send the pro-notes filed by respondent/plaintiff under Exs.A. 1 ir 11 A.2 lor expert opinion along r.vith diaries filed by the defendant along i.ith I.A.No.l243 ol 2025. Pcrusal ol the records rvould so to shorv tir t the trial Courl rvhile passing impugned order in CI{.P.No.3857 ol'll(t.:i has lbund that the application filed by the petitioner is at a much bcr; ted stage for the reason that the plaintiff evidence was already recordecl .t rl closed and the defendant evidence was also so far as DW. I and DW.l r,as exarnined till that time no such effort was made by the petitioner lor' : ry opinion of the expeft on the pro-notes on the basis of which a suit h : , been fi [ed. 'f he trial Court found that there is an admission ou lre part of the petitioner/defendant so far as signature that was foun,.l on the prc-note F-urlher he wants the expert opinion only so lar as the,.i ter entries in the pro-note are concemed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied 11i,n judgrnent of Hon'b1e Supreme Court in Tatipamula Nagaraju v. Pet em Padmavathil and also judgment of High Court of Andhra Pradesh al \ nlaravati in Civil Revision Petition No.268l of 2023 in the case of Pt'ta Suthibabu v. Akkala Sarve Vijaya Kumar decided on 31.10.202ji ir support of his contentrons ' 1zott1 + scc tzs

I I n \

5. Having duly considered the contentions put-forth by the leamed counsel for the petitioner, this court finds that the trial court in the course of dismissing the I.A. found that it is a case where the suit that of 20ll after the pleadings rverc complete and also evidence have been recorded on both the sides, it is thereafter such an application has been filed by the petitioner. Further the Court also found that the two signatures on the pro-note has been emphatically admitted by the defendant to be that of her. Fufther it rvas also fbund that the petitioner wanted to get the contents ol the pro-notc examined with certain alleged contents of the diaries which were not made part ol the rccord and which would also for the hrst tirne brought on record by I.A.No.l243 of 2025. what also crops up in the mind of this court is rhat the petitioner had all these grounds available during the coursc of the trial itself and it appears that he has deliberately thought it of rnoving such an application now at this stage of trial where the evidence ofboth the parties have already been recorded, which also gives an impression that the application have been moved only with an intention of further protracting the proceedings without any justifiable and strong case.

6. So far as two judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.Nagarjau (supra) the said case was one which arouse after the suit itself was dismissed by the trial court after a full trial was over and '=---- _-Je{

therefbre the f,rnding therein becomes distinguishable 1: the facts of the present case. Liker'vise, in the judgment of P'sathibabr' {supra) decided b-v the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati' lrat was the case rvhere the request was lbr an expert opinion is lor : 'rnparison of the signatures of the same person on two separate set of clr:: rlents Unlike in the present case where there is an admission on the pr'r of the petitioner that the signatures in the pro-note to be that of the petitL' ner itself" On this ground also, the judgment of the High Court of \ rdhra Pradesh is distinguishable.

7. In view of the same, no strong case as such as been made oul by the petitioner. Accordingly, both the civil revi: i I r petitions stand dismisscd Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any' shall .and closed Thele Shall be no order as to costs , srl/- B.REKHA RANI riinrur REGISTRAR /. ! '': ASI ,/TRUE COPYI/ SECTION OFFICER To Ir: uf fli;ifl "iryfoiHlrn?3finfii+ tB'rii io' o One CC to Sri. AjaY KulKarr

1.

2.

3.

4. fua Two CD CoPies Dr 19r t! I

HIGH COURT DATED:31 11212025

ORDER

CRP.NOs.3857 AND 4116 0F 2025 DISMISSING THESE CRP'S . -.:-";--" . \ itr. Jl^ (c ( ( (;, '.'r.) '.1(:tn.N * f: , r)ATC\ , \ i I t i I ; I I I II ! i I I II I!

eb pt a o (-) lt i !'ii,r 2026