THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.4697, 4739 and 4984 of 2011 December 07, 2011 Between: Vogeti Satyanarayana Murthy, S/o.Venkata Gopala Krishnam Raju And others ... Petitioners And Alavala Satyanarayana Murthy, S/o.Ramulu ...Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.4697, 4739 and 4984 of 2011 ORDER: These three civil revision petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India arose out of three interlocutory applications ﬁled in the same suit. It is, therefore, convenient to dispose of these revision petitions by common order. The petitioners are the defendants. The respondent (hereafter, the plaintiﬀ) ﬁled suit being O.S.No.89 of 2004 on the ﬁle of the Court of the VII Additional District Judge (F a s t Track Court), Rajahmundry for recovery of amount based on registered mortgage deed executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiﬀ. The defendants are contesting the suit denying execution of mortgage. The trial is completed and the matter is posted for arguments. At that stage, they ﬁled I.A. No.923 of 2011 to reopen the defendants’ evidence. They also ﬁled another application being I.A. No.924 of 2011 to send Exs.B4 and B7 receipts to handwriting expert for comparison of the signatures thereon with admitted signature of the plaintiﬀ on the vakalat. In addition they also ﬁled I.A. No.399 of 2011 praying the trial Court to direct the plaintiﬀ to pay deﬁcit court fee on the mortgage separately otherwise to reject the suit. These applications are opposed by the plaintiff. The trial Court dismissed all the three applications on the ground of delay and also on the ground that the applications are not bona ﬁde. Aggrieved by those orders, the present civil revision petitions are filed. The Counsel for the petitioners/defendants would submit that the dismissal of applications for reopening the suit and for sending the disputed signatures to handwriting expert on the ground of delay is unsustainable. He would also submit that when the court fee was not calculated properly, the Court has power to direct the plaintiﬀ to pay the court fee in accordance with law. This Court has perused the three separate orders passed by the Court below available on record. After giving anxious consideration this Court is convinced that the petitioners/defendants are only trying to prolong the suit. Indeed, as seen from the aﬃdavits accompanying Interlocutory Applications, on one hand they say that they discharged the mortgage and on the other hand they deny the execution of mortgage. Secondly, though the suit was filed in 2004 and the trial was completed in April, 2010, they did not take any steps for sending the disputed signatures on the mortgage deeds to the expert. The matter is coming up for arguments and at that stage the applications are filed. The trial Court correctly considered all these aspects and dismissed the applications. This Court, therefore, does not ﬁnd any error apparent on the face of record in the orders passed by the Court below. The civil revision petitions are dismissed without any order as to costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) December 07, 2011 YS