Disposed¶35

Chimakurthy Venkata Subbarao v. Gali Anjaiah

Andhra Pradesh HC2 Feb 2026CRP/303/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati; CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 303/2026; Justice Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda; decided 03.02.2026; Article 227 Constitution of India; speedy disposal; delay in disposal of interlocutory application; three-year pendency; Section 45 Evidence Act 1872; expert opinion on disputed signatures; O.S.No.7 of 2022; I.A.No.467 of 2022; six-month norm for disposal of IAs; time-bound direction of three months; CRP disposed; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition disposed of with a direction to the trial court to dispose of I.A.No.467 of 2022 in O.S.No.7 of 2022 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order; notices to the respondents dispensed with; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous application, if any, stands closed

Chimakurthy Venkata Subbarao Vs Gali Anjaiah — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial court could keep I.A.No.467 of 2022 in O.S.No.7 of 2022, an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, 1872 for expert opinion on disputed signatures, pending undisposed for over three years, and whether a direction should issue for its disposal within a fixed time-frame

¶34

Court's answer

It is settled law that an interlocutory application filed in suit proceedings should be considered and disposed of as early as possible, approximately within a period of six months

¶34

Ratio / Principle

The trial court cannot, without reasonable grounds, keep an interlocutory application pending for years together contrary to settled law, as early disposal of the suit is a well-recognized right of the parties

¶34

Key takeaways

The Civil Revision Petition was disposed of directing the trial court to dispose of I.A.No.467 of 2022 in O.S.No.7 of 2022 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the orderratio¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India — petitioner, 1st defendant in O.S.No.7 of 2022 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Parchur, sought a direction for disposal of I.A.No.467 of 2022 filed under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, 1872 seeking expert opinion on disputed signatures, pending over three years — Held, it is settled law that an interlocutory application in suit proceedings should be considered and disposed of as early as possible, approximately within a period of six months; the trial court cannot, without reasonable grounds, keep the matter pending for years together, as early disposal of the suit is a well-recognized right of the parties — Petition disposed of directing the trial court to dispose of the I.A. as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order; notices to respondents dispensed with; no order as to costs.

¶1

[3329]

¶2

APHC010044212026

¶3

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

¶4

TUESDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 303/2026

¶7

Between:

¶8

CHIMAKURTHY VENKATA SUBBARAO, S/O. LATE LAKSHMI NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDENT OF INKOILU VILIAGE AND MANDAI, BAPATIA DISTRICT.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

GALI ANJAIAH, S/O. SATYANANDAM, AGED 60 YEARS, R/O. NALIAGALLA VILIAGE, INKOILU MANDAI, BAPATIA DISTRICT.

¶12

CHIMAKURTHY BADRI NARAYANA, S/O. LATE LAKSHMI NARAYANA, AGED 48 YEARS. RESIDENT OF INKOILU VILLAGE AND MANDAI, BAPATIA DISTRICT. (DIED)

¶13

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶14

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 topleased direct the trial Court to dispose of I.A.No.467 of 2022 in O.S.No.7 of 2022 filed under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, within a fixed time-frame of 3 months and to pass

¶15

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶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 pleased to direct the trial court to dispose I.A.No.467 of 2022 in O.S.No.7 of 2022 on the file of Senior Civil, Judge, Parchur expeditiously by fixing certain time frame and to pass

¶17

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶19

1.A.SAI ROHIT

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶21

¶22

The Court made the following:

¶23

¶24

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶25

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 303/2026

¶26

ORDER:-

¶27

The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Parchur to dispose of I.A.No.467 of 2022 in O.S.No.7 of 2022 filed under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, 1872 within a fixed time frame of three months.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. As issuance of notices to the respondents is not necessary in this matter, hence notices to the respondents are hereby dispensed with. Perused the material on record.

¶29

The petitioner herein is the 1^st defendant, respondent No.1 is the plaintiff and respondent No.2 herein is the 2^nd defendant in the suit. For the sake of convenience of this Court, the parties herein are referred as arrayed in the suit.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner/Defendant No.1 filed an application i.e., I.A.No.467 of 2022 in O.S.No.7 of 2022 under Section 45 of the India Evidence Act, 1872 seeking to refer the disputed signatures of the petitioner herein along with the admitted signature of the 1^st defendant for the expert opinion. But for one reason or the other, the trial court sit over the matter and not disposed of the I.A. even after completion of three years. Hence, the Revision Petition.

¶31

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the material placed on record, it is observed that it

¶32

¶33

is a settled law that if any interlocutory application is filed in suit proceedings,

¶34

the same should be considered and to be disposed of as early as possible, approximately within a period of six months. In the instant case, it appears that the interlocutory application is filed three years back, but so far the same was not considered and disposed of, which is certainly contrary to the settled preposition of law. So, the grievance of the petitioner is that the non-disposal of the application, which is pending for more than three years, which is hampering the suit proceedings and on the other hand, the rights of the parties to the suit is at stake. Early disposal of the suit is well known recognized right of the parties. If that is so, the trial court without there being any reasonable grounds, it cannot keep the matter pending for years together, contrary to the settled law. Therefore, this Court inclined to dispose of the Civil Revision Petition directing the trial court to dispose of I.A.No.467 of 2022 in O.S.No.7 of 2022, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶35