(Prayer: 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 begs to present this Memorandum of Civil Revision petition against order dated 07-12-2023 in IA No 853 of 2023 in OS No 65 of 2017 , before the court of Junior Civil Judge , Jammalamadugu for the following grounds among others

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

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 to stay all further proceedings in O.S No. 65 of 2017, before the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Jammalamadugu pending disposal of the above CRP and pass such

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 set aside the Order dated Order dated 07.12.2023 in I.A.No. 855 of 2023 in O.S.No. 65 of 2017, before the Junior Civil Judge, Jammalamadugu.

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

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 to stay all further proceedings in O.S.No. 65 of 2017, before the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Jammalamadugu, pending disposal of the CRP.

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

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 May be pleased to extend the interim order dated 02.02.2024 in I.A No. 01 of 2024 in C.R.P No. 184 of 2024.

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 set aside the Order dated Order dated 07.12.2023 in I.A.N0. 854 of 2023 in O.S.No. 65 of 2017, before the Junior Civil Judge, Jammalamadugu and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

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 to stay all further proceedings in O.S.No. 65 of 2017, before the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Jammalamadugu, and pass s)

Common Order:

1. These Civil Revision Petitions are filed assailing the orders dated 7.12.2023 passed in I.A.Nos. 853, 854 & 855 of 2023 in O.S.No.65 of 2017 by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Jammalamadugu.

2. Inasmuch as the Civil Revision Petitions stem out of the orders passed in interlocutory applications filed in the same suit that too for reopen, recall of P.W.1 and for sending the documents to handing writing expert, they are being heard together and are disposed of by this common order.

3. The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant in the suit in O.S.No.65 of 2017.

4. The facts that led to filing of these Civil Revision Petitions, in brief, are that the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of his right and title to the plaint schedule property and for consequential permanent injunction. The defendant resisted the relief by filing written statement by projecting Ex.B1 unregistered will said to have been executed by Tummaluru Subba Reddy, who is material uncle of the defendant as well as plaintiff, contending that the said Tummauru Subba Reddy, who is the owner of the plaint schedule property, executed Ex.B1 unregistered will bequeathing the plaint schedule property in his favour. Pending suit, the plaintiff filed petitions vide I.A.Nos. 853, 854 & 855 of 2023 to reopen the suit, recall P.W.1 and to send Ex.B1-Will & Ex.B2-Pattadar passbook, to handwriting expert for comparison of thumb impressions contained on the documents. The defendant resisted the relief sought in the petitions by filing counters contending that Ex.B2-pattadar passbook contained the Left Thumb Impression of his maternal uncle whereas the Ex.B1-Will contained the fore finger impression, since the left thumb of his maternal uncle was completely removed in view of the injury inflicted with hunting sickle by the plaintiff and hence the petitions are liable to be dismissed.

                  (ii) The learned trial Judge upon hearing both the learned counsel dismissed the petitions.

                  (iii) The dismissal orders have been assailed in these Civil Revision Petitions.

5. Heard Ms. G.Mounika, learned counsel, representing Sri Bodduluri Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for petitioner/ plaintiff and Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for respondent/ defendant.

6. Ms.G.Mounika, learned counsel, while reiterating the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the petition in trial Court and the grounds of Civil Revision Petitions would contend that Ex.B1 unregistered Will was brought into existence by the defendant by forgery only with a view to defeat the right of the plaintiff in the plaint schedule property and sending of Ex.B1-unregistered Will and Ex.B2-Pattadar passbook containing the disputed and admitted thumb impressions of the testator of the alleged Will would unravel the truth that Ex.B1 is a forged document. He would further contend that Ex.B1 unregistered will dated 10.09.2007 was brought into existence on the stamp paper dated 09.10.1998 purchased by the defendant and D.W.1/defendant himself admitted in cross-examination that LTI of the executor of the Will is located on the bottom of the first page of the Will and the learned trial Judge ought to have noted the difference between the thumb impressions on first and second page of the Will and send the documents for expert. He would further contend that the defendant except Ex.B1 & Ex.B2 did not file any other document to substantiate his version, however, the learned trial Judge upon improper consideration of the material dismissed the petitions erroneously and therefore, the said dismissal orders are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petitions.

7. On the other hand, Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for defendant while reiterating the contents of the counter filed in trial Court would contend that long after obtaining the pattadar passbooks the Left Thumb of the testator of the Will was removed in view of the injury inflicted by the plaintiff with a hunting sickle and hence the testator affixed his fore- finger on the Will. He would further contend that the learned trial Judge had scanned the material and contentions advanced by both parties in proper perspective and rightly dismissed the petitions and the well considered orders do not require interference of this Court, that the Civil Revision Petitions being meritless deserve dismissal and accordingly prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petitions.

8. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

9. The reason for reopening the matter and recalling P.W.1 is for sending Ex.B1-unregistered Will and Ex.B2-Pattadar passbook to an expert for comparison of the thumb impressions contained on the said documents. In the counter, the respondent took up a stand that the pattadar passbook contained the Left Thumb Impression of his material uncle whereas the fore-finger was affixed on the unregistered Will, since the left thumb of his material uncle was completely removed in view of the injury inflicted by the plaintiff with a hunting sickle.

10. Under Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, facts admitted by parties or their agents before or during a legal hearing do not require proof. This principle accelerates judicial proceedings by eliminating the need to prove agreed-upon facts, though the court retains discretion to require proof of such facts.

11. In the instant case the defendant himself is admitting that the thumb impressions contained on the pattadar passbook and unregistered Will are not similar, offering an explanation for dissimilarity. Therefore, for the purpose of finding out dissimilarity in the thumb impressions, there is no need to send the documents to any expert.

12. Moreover, for sending a document to handwriting expert for comparison of thumb impressions, there is no need for reopening the evidence and recalling a witness. Therefore, the petitions filed for reopening the matter and recalling of P.W.1 are redundant.

13. In view of the above, the orders passed by the learned trial Judge do not require interference of this Court and the Civil Revision Petitions being meritless deserve dismissal.

14. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.