Dismissed

Velpula Pullamma Died v. Manjula Ramanjaneyulu

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Apr 2025CRP/373/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petition challenging refusal to send thumb impressions and a promissory note for expert comparison after seven years' delay and an earlier inconclusive expert report. The High Court held Article 227 jurisdiction is supervisory and limited, found no ground to interfere with the trial court's discretion, and dismissed the revision petition without costs.

What the court decided

AI extract

Velpula Pullamma Died Vs Manjula Ramanjaneyulu — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVi^^fe^

¶2

FRIDAY THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶3

V >
|§ o

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 373 OF 2025

¶7

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India Civil Revision Petition having been aggrieved by the Order dated 24.01.2025 passed in I A No 11 of 2025 in OS No 84 of 2018, on the file of Hon'ble Junior Civil Judge, Jammalamadugu

¶8

Between:

¶9

Velpula Pullamma Died

¶10

Uppadaboina Rama Devi, W/o U. Obula Reddy, Aged about 55 years, Houewife, R/o.D.No.1/34, Ramireddypalli Village Yeturu Post, Kondapuram Mandal, Y SR Kadapa District.

¶11

...PETITIONER/S

¶12

AND

¶13

Manjula Ramanjaneyulu, S/o Pedda Subbarayudu, Aged about 35 years. Cultivation, R/o.D.No.1-82B, K.Ramireddypalli Village, R.SKondapuram Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.

¶14

...RESPONDENT/S

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶16

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 Grant Stay the OS No: 84 of 2018, on the file^{ofLearnedJunior} CivjUudge, Jammalamadugu.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI. MEDARA SIVA PRASAD

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent :SRI. T DIWAKAR REDDY

¶19

The Court made the following lOrder

¶20

¶21

APHC010065612025

¶22

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3329] (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶23

FRIDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶24

PRESENT

¶25

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶26

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 373/2025

¶27

Between;

¶28

Velpula Pullamma Died and Others

¶29

...PETITIONER(S)

¶30

AND

¶31

Manjula Ramanjaneyulu ...RESPONDENT

¶32

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶33

MEDARA SIVA PRASAD

¶34

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶35

1.T DIWAKAR REDDY

¶36

The Court made the following;

¶37

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶38

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 373 OF 2025

¶39

ORDER:

¶40

This civil revision petition is filed under Article^{227oftheConstitutionof} India, challenging the order in I.A.No.11 of 2025 in^{O.S.No.84of2018dated} 24.01.2025 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Jammalamadugu, dismissing the petition filed under Order 11 Rule 14 C.P.C.

¶41

I.A.No.11 of 2025 is filed under Order 11 Rule 14 C.P.C by the petitioner/defendant with a prayer to send the thumb impression of the petitioner and petitioner’s mother Velpula Pullamma (Principal Defendant) relating to Document Nos.142/2017 and 143/2017 dated 17.02.2017 along with the suit promissory note dated 01.11.2015 which are in custody of the Sub-Registrar, Muddanur for comparison and send those^{certifieddocuments} to expert opinion.

¶42

The respondent/plaintiff opposed the petition on various grounds, stating that the earlier petitions filed by the petitioner seeking for expert opinion as well as petition for production of documents^{aredismissedandalso} returned. Filing of I.A.No.11 of 2025 for the very same cause is not maintainable and tenable and not valid under law.

¶43

¶44

NV,J CRP.No.373 of 2025

¶45

The Court below upon hearing arguments of both sides, observed that, the petitioner already filed I.A.No.305 of 2019 and I.A.No.98 of 2021 for sending the thumb impression of the deceased defendant who is the principal borrower along with suit promissory note, but the same were not pressed by learned counsel for the petitioner for the reasons best known to him. Moreover, the deceased principal borrower also died. Now, the petitioner filed for sending the thumb impression book for the year 2017 which contains the thumb impression of the petitioner and her mother relating to sale deed Document Nos.142/2017 and 143/2017 dated 17.02.2017. The Court below further observed that, previously, Ex.a-1 is returned by the Director, Finger Print Burearu due to smudged, not clear and not sufficient for comparison with the disputed thumb on it in available impressions in I.A.No.305 of 2019. Again sending the same for expert opinion will delay the suit proceedings. Since the case stands for further evidence of defendant side, it clear discloses that, in order to delay the suit proceedings, I.A.No.11 of 2025 is only filed and dismissed I.A.No.11 of 2025.

¶46

Aggrieved by the order passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Jammalamadugu, the present civil revision petition is filed, mainly on the ground that, such relief can be claimed at any stage and requested this Court to set-aside the order in I.A.No.11 of 2025 in O.S.No.84 of 2018 dated

¶47

¶48

NV,J CRP.No.373 of 2025

¶49

24.01.2025 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Jammalamadugu, Kadapa District.

¶50

During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners^{contendedthatthe} petitioners only sought to verify the authenticity of the disputed thumb impression which is crucial for justice, denial of expert examination violates principles of natural justice under Article 21 of the^{ConstitutionofIndia.He} contends that previous expert reports did not conclude anything due to lack of clear reference thumb impressions and the petitioners sought to provide alternative reference thumb impressions from a government registered document i.e sale deeds of the year 2017 which ensures authenticity. He further contends that, the previous expert reference attempt was unsuccessful due to lack of clear specimen prints which was beyond the petitioners control. When a party denies execution of document, the expert examination is required for truth determination. Courts should not reject such requests on technical ground and requested to set-aside impugned^{orderinI.A.No.11} of 2025 in O.S.No.84 of 2018 dated 24.01.2025 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Jammalamadugu, Kadapa District

¶51

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent^{contendedthat} the Court cannot refer the disputed signatures for comparison with the signatures obtained, as there is a time gap of more than seven years from the date of suit, till the date of filing petition, and there is a possibility of change in

¶52

¶53

NV,J CRP.No.373 of 2025

¶54

Style of signatures, including change of writing for different reasons. Moreover, the first defendant who is the principal borrower had died during pendency of the civil revision petition. Further, previously, Ex.A-1 was returned by the Director, Finger Print Bureau due to smudges, unclear and not sufficient for comparison with the disputed thumb available in I.A.No.305 of 2019 and requested this Court to dismiss the petition by confirming the order in I.A.No.11 of 2025 in O.S.No.84 of 2018 dated 24.01.2025. It is settled law that the Court is competent enough either to determine or to resolve the disputed issue pending before it, requires any technical and expert evidence or not. If the court below after having assessed entire^material as well as evidence, it comes to conclusion that in the given circumstances, there is no necessity of any technical/expert examination for determination of the subject issue and it ordered accordingly, this Court cannot interfere its basic assessment under standing in a revision petition. More particularly, in the case in hand, this Court observed that the conduct of the revision petitioner and delay in filing the present petition is nothing but to drag the matter for one reason or the other. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief, muchless prayed.

¶55

The petitioners/defendants maintained silence for all these years and suddenly filed I.A.No.11 of 2025 in the year 2025 i.e after lapse of seven years

¶56

¶57

NV,J CRP.No.373 of 2025

¶58

almost from the date of filing written statement and^itisatthe stage^offurther evidence of the petitioners/defendants in the main^suit.

¶59

Further, the first defendant who is the principal borrower had died during pendency of the civil revision petition and previously, Ex.A-1 was returned by the Director, Finger Print Bureau due to smudges, unclear and not sufficient for comparison with the disputed thumb available in i.A.No.305 of 2019.

¶60

This court can exercise revisional jurisdiction under^{Article227ofthe} Constitution of India in limited circumstances and nature of the jurisdiction is supervisory over the subordinate courts or the tribunals^{underthecontrolof} the High Court. The power of revision under Article^{227oftheConstitutionof} India is limited to find out whether the order under challenge, passed by the subordinate court or tribunal within their jurisdictional limits and the main intention of exercising both administrative and judicial control under Article 227 of Constitution of India is to keep them within the bounds of their jurisdiction and not to allow them to transgress from their jurisdictional limits but not otherwise. This Court can exercise jurisdiction^{underArticle227ofthe} Constitution of India under the following circumstances:

¶61

a) When the inferior court assumes jurisdiction erroneously in excess of power.

¶62

b) When refused to exercise jurisdiction.

NV,J CRP.No.373 of 2025

¶67

¶68

c) When found an error of law apparent on the face^ofrecord.

¶69

d) Violated principles of natural justice,

¶70

e) Arbitrary or capricious exercise of authority or^discretion.

¶71

f) Arriving at a finding which is perverse or based^{onnomaterial.}

¶72

g) A patent or flagrant error in procedure,

¶73

h) Order resulting in manifest injustice,

¶74

i) Error both on facts and law or even otherwise.

¶75

Similarly, thid Court cannot exercise its discretion^{underArticle227of}

¶76

the Constitution of India in the following circumstances:

¶77

'a) Where the only question involved is one of interpretation^of deed;

¶78

b) On question of admission or rejection of particular piece of evidence, even though the question may be of everyday recurrence:

¶79

c) To correct erroneous exercise of jurisdiction, as^aCourt of revision;

¶80

d) To set aside an intra vires finding of the fact, except where it is founded on no material or is perverse;

¶81

e) To correct an error of law, not being an error apparent^onthe face of the record;

¶82

f) To interfere with the intravires exercise of discretionary power, unless it is violative of principles of natural justice;

¶83

g) The Court shall not interfere on a merely technical ground which would not advance substantial justice."

¶84

¶85

NV,J CRP.No.373 of 2025

¶86

Article 227 of Constitution of India deals with power of superintendence by the High Court over all Subordinate Court and Tribunals. The power of superintendence conferred upon the High Court by Article²²⁷ is not confined to administrative superintendence only, but includes the power of judicial revision also even where no appeal or revision lies to the High Court under the ordinary law, rather power under this Article is wider than that of Article 226 in the sense that it is not subject to those technicalities of procedureor traditional fetters which are to be found in certiorari jurisdiction and such power can also be exercised suo motu. It is a well settled principle that the High Court can exercise supervisory power under Article 227 of Constitution of India, as held by the Apex Court in State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu@ Afsan Guru”' that under Article 227 of Constitution of India the High Court can interfere with the directions of the Subordinate Courts.

¶87

In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, this^Courtcannot exercise its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India though the order is wrong, since the power can be exercised only to keep the subordinate Courts and Tribunals within its bounds.

¶88

Hence, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the finding recorded by the Court below, except to reverse the finding that delay is not a ground to

¶89

^ AIR 2005 SC 3820

¶90

¶91

NV,J CRP.No.373 of 2025

¶92

¶93

send the disputed signatures on the documents for handwriting experts for

¶94

comparisons.

¶95