Smt. Hamandh Kavitha vs Ankathi Sai Krishna Prasad

Court
High Court for the State of Telangana

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
Civil Revision Petition No.3199 of 2026


Between :
Smt. Hamandh Kavitha W/o H.Narsingh Rao,
aged about 55 years, occ: Business, R/o 2-3-703,
Plot No.031, Agarwal Towers, Amberpet,
Hyderabad,500013.
….Petitioner/Plaintiff
VERSUS
Ankathi Sai Krishna Prasad S/o late Ankati
Surender, aged about 31 years, occ: Business,
R/o 1-4-5/1c/41, Mahabubabad, Mahabubabad
District, Telangana and four others
… Respondents/Defendants

DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED: 04.11.2026

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments?
Yes/No

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals?
Yes/No

3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to
see the fair copy of the Judgment?
Yes/No

_______________________
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J

2

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
+ Civil Revision Petition No.3199 of 2026

% Dated 04.11.2026

# Smt. Hamandh Kavitha W/o H.Narsingh
Rao, aged about 55 years, occ: Business,
R/o 2-3-703, Plot No.031, Agarwal Towers,
Amberpet, Hyderabad,500013
….Petitioner/Plaintiff
VERSUS
$ Ankathi Sai Krishna Prasad S/o late Ankati
Surender, aged about 31 years, occ: Business,
R/o 1-4-5/1c/41, Mahabubabad,
Mahabubabad District, Telangana and four
others

… Respondents/Defendants

! Counsel for Petitioner : Mr.M.Murthy Maan

^ Counsel for Respondents : Mr.Yadu Krishna Sainath



< GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? CITATIONS:
1. (2005) 6 SCC 733
2. 2011 SCC OnLine AP 362
3. 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1549


3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

Civil Revision Petition No.3199 of 2026
(CNR No. HBHC010138832026)

Date: 04.11.2026

Reserved on: 30.10.2026 Pronounced on : 04.11.2026
Uploaded on : 04.11.2026

Between:
Smt. Hamandh Kavitha
….Petitioner/Plaintiff
and

Ankathi Sai Krishna Prasad and four others
….Respondents/Defendants
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed invoking the
provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the
order dated 09.09.2026 passed by the learned Principal District
Judge, Mahabubabad, (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the learned trial
Court’) where under I.A.No.597 of 2026 in I.A.No.407 of 2026 in
O.S.No.7 of 2026 filed by the petitioner/plaintiff seeking to refer the
original “Bhu Vikraya Pathram”, dated 28.01.2021, along with other
documents for scientific examination and comparison with the
admitted signatures of late Ankati Surender, for disposal of
injunction application i.e. I.A.No.407 of 2026, was dismissed.
2. Revision petitioner herein is the plaintiff and respondent Nos.1
to 5 are the defendants in O.S.No.7 of 2026. For the sake of

4

convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed
in O.S.No.7 of 2026 before the trial Court.
3. Brief facts of the case:
3.1 The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No.7 of 2026 before the learned
Principal District Judge, Mahabubabad, seeking specific performance
of Agreement of Sale (Bhu Vikraya Pathram), dated 21.01.2021,
directing the defendants to execute a Registered Sale Deed and to
declare the Partition Deed bearing document No.7789 of 2023, dated
19.06.2023, as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff to the
extent of the suit schedule properties; and to declare the
Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney bearing
document No.1859 of 2021, dated 05.01.2021, the Rectification Deed
bearing document No.11695 of 2021, dated 03.09.2021, and the
Supplementary Agreement for apportionment of flats bearing
document No.4725 of 2022, dated 18.04.2022, as null and void and
not binding on the plaintiff to the extent of land admeasuring
Ac.0-20 guntas in Sy.No.498/A/2 forming part of the suit schedule
property. Along with the said suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.407 of
2026 for grant of ad-interim injunction. The defendants filed counter
in I.A.No.407 of 2026 disputing the signatures of late Amkati
Surender in Bhu Vikraya Pathram, dated 28.01.2021. Consequently,
the plaintiff filed I.A.No.597 of 2026 in I.A.No.407 of 2026 to refer the
original Bhu Vikraya Patram, dated 21.01.2021, along with the other

5

documents to the Handwriting Expert for scientific examination and
comparison of the signature with the genuine signatures of late
Ankati Surender. The learned trial Court dismissed I.A.No.597 of
2026, however, granted liberty to the plaintiff to file similar
application in suit proceedings for referring the documents for expert
examination at the stage of trial or at any stage of the suit
proceedings. Aggrieved by the above said order, the plaintiff filed the
present Civil Revision Petition.
4. Heard Mr. M.Murthy Maan, learned counsel for the petitioner,
and Mr. Yadu Krishna Sainath, learned counsel for the respondents.
5. Submissions of the learned counsel for the
petitioner/plaintiff:
5.1 Learned counsel submitted that the learned trial Court,
without properly considering the contentions raised by the plaintiff,
erroneously dismissed I.A.No.597 of 2026 on the ground that the suit
has not been ripened for trial and the plaintiff filed an application to
send the document for expert opinion, for adjudication of I.A.No.407
of 2026, especially there is no prohibition under law requiring a party
to file such an application only during the course of trial and the
parties are entitled to file such an application at any stage and the
same is contrary to law.

6

5.2 He further submitted that the defendants in the counter filed
in I.A.No.407 of 2026 specifically disputed the signatures of late
Amkati Surender in Bhu Vikraya Pathram, dated 28.01.2021, and to
prove the factum of its genuineness, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.597 of
2026 to send the Bhu Vikraya Pathram along with the admitted
signatures of late Ankati Surender for expert examination. If the
document is sent for scientific examination for comparison, no
prejudice would be caused to the defendants and the defendants are
entitled to raise the objection basing upon the report, which is going
to be submitted by the expert.
5.3 He also submitted that when the defendants disputed the
genuineness of the documents, the burden lies upon the plaintiff to
prove that the document relied upon by him is genuine one. To
prove the factum of genuineness of the documents, the plaintiff filed
I.A.No.597 of 2026 and the same is in accordance with law.
5.4 He further submitted that the learned trial Court dismissed the
application on the ground that the plaintiff has not agreed to give
undertaking that he shall not challenge the expert opinion if it is
against his case, which is contrary to law. Hence, the impugned
order passed by the learned trial Court is liable to be set aside and
prays to allow the I.A.No.597 of 2026.

7

5.5 In support of his contention, he relied upon the following
orders/judgments;
1
i) Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal and others ;
ii) Pallapu Mohanarao v. Thammisetty Subba Rao and
2
others ; and
iii) Dr.Alaksani Sridhar Babu vs. Kampa Thirupathaiah
(C.R.P.No.1945 of 2024 of this Court).
6. Submissions of the learned counsel for
respondents/defendants:
6.1 Per contra , learned counsel submitted that the learned trial
Court after considering the contentions of the respective parties has
rightly dismissed I.A.No.597 of 2026 by giving cogent reasons and
also granted liberty to the plaintiff to file similar application in the
suit at the stage of trial or at any stage of the suit proceedings.
6.2 He further submitted that the main suit has not ripened for
trial. The relief sought in I.A.No.407 of 2026 is for grant of ad-
interim injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the
petition schedule properties till the disposal of the suit and for
adjudication of the said application, the plaintiff has to satisfy the
necessary ingredients for granting ad-interim injunction i.e. prima

1
(2005) 6 SCC 733
2
2011 SCC OnLine AP 362

8

facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. Hence, the
plaintiff is not entitled to seek expert opinion for adjudication of
I.A.No.407 of 2026. There are no grounds to interfere with the
impugned order passed by the learned trial Court.
6.3 In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shruti Manav Sharma and another
3
vs. Sunanina Singh and others .
Analysis:
7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective
parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it reveals
that the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.7 of 2026 seeking specific
performance of Agreement of Sale/Bhu Vikraya Pathram and also
other reliefs as mentioned in para No.3.1 of this order. In the said
suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.407 of 2026 under Order XXXIX Rules 1
and 2 r/w Section 151 of C.P.C. for grant of an ad-interim injunction
restraining the defendants from alienating the petition schedule
properties till the disposal of the suit. The defendants filed counter
denying the averments made by the plaintiff including disputing the
signatures of late Amkati Surender in Bhu Vikraya Pathram, dated
28.01.2021. Consequently, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.597 of 2026 in
I.A.No.407 of 2026 invoking the provisions of Order XXVI Rule 10-A
r/w Section 151 of the C.P.C. r/w Section 39 of the Bharatiya

3
2026 SCC OnLine SC 1549

9

Sakshya Adhinayam, 2023 and Section 14-A of the Specific Relief Act,
1963 to send the original Bhu Vikraya Patram, dated 21.01.2021,
along with the other documents to the Handwriting Expert for
scientific examination and comparison of the signatures with the
genuine signatures of late Ankati Surender, for disposal of I.A.No.407
of 2026. Even according to the parties, it is not in dispute that the
main suit is not ripened for trial before the learned trial Court and the
subject document was not marked as an exhibit. The learned trial
Court by relying upon the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Shruti Manav Sharma ( supra ) has rightly came to the
conclusion that the plaintiff ought to have filed I.A.No.597 of 2026 in
the suit and also granted liberty to the plaintiff to file similar
application in the main suit at the stage of trial or at any stage of the
suit proceedings.
8. The order relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiff in
Dr.Alaksani Sridhar Babu ( supra ) in C.R.P. No.1945 of 2024 of this
Court, is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present
case on the ground that in the said case, the defendant therein filed
I.A.No.317 of 2023 to send the agreement of sale along with the
admitted signatures to the Hand Writing Expert to prove that he has
not executed the agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff therein,
for adjudication of the main suit. In the present case, the plaintiff
filed I.A.No.597 of 2026 for adjudication of I.A.No.407 of 2026, which

10

was filed for grant of ad-interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules
1 and 2 of C.P.C.
9. The other judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the
plaintiff in Kasturi (supra), and Pallapu Mohanarao ( supra ) are also
not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case on
the ground that the issue involved in the said cases was whether a
third party to an agreement of sale in a suit for specific performance
is entitled to seek impleadment as a party defendant by invoking the
provisions of Order I Rule 10(2) of C.P.C. In the case on hand, the
issue involved in I.A.No.597 of 2026 is whether the Agreement of
Sale/Bhu Vikraya Patram along with other documents, is required to
be sent to a handwriting expert for deciding the interlocutory
application.
10. Insofar as the contention raised by the learned counsel for the
plaintiff that the learned trial Court dismissed I.A.No.597 of 2026 on
the ground that the learned counsel for the plaintiff refused to give
undertaking that if the expert report comes against him, he will not
challenge the same is concerned, a perusal of the impugned order
reveals that the learned trial Court dismissed I.A.No.597 of 2026 not
only on the said ground as mentioned in para 17 of the impugned
order and also other grounds and granted liberty to the plaintiff to file
similar application in the main suit at the stage of trial or at any stage
of the suit proceedings.

11

11. It is relevant to mention that the learned trial Court ought to
have decided the application filed by the plaintiff basing upon the
pleadings of the respective parties and the material available on
record. One of the reasons in the impugned order in para No.17 is
that the plaintiff had refused to give undertaking. However, based
upon the submission made by the learned counsel for the defendants
that if the plaintiff undertakes not to challenge the expert opinion in
case the expert had given opinion against the plaintiff, the learned
trial Court observed that in such an event, there will be no purpose
for referring the document to the expert and this is one more
circumstance for consideration in not sending the document for
expert examination. The said reason mentioned in para No.17 of the
impugned order is contrary to law. Hence, this Court while exercising
the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, is of the considered view that the reason assigned in para No.17
of the impugned order is liable to be set aside and accordingly set
aside.
12. It is already stated supra that the plaintiff filed I.A.No.597 of
2026 seeking to refer the original “Bhu Vikraya Pathram” along with
other documents for scientific examination, in I.A. No.407 of 2026,
which is filed seeking for ad-interim injunction. Hence, this Court is
of the considered view that the learned trial Court has rightly
dismissed I.A.No.597 of 2026 and granted liberty to the plaintiff to file

12

similar application for referring the documents for expert examination
during the course of trial or at any subsequent stage in suit
proceedings.
13. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed except to
the extent of the findings recorded in para 17 of the impugned order.
No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall
stand closed.
_____________________________
JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO

04.11.2026

Note: L.R.Copy to be marked.

pgp