IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 357 OF 2010 Between : Bojja Thirupathi. ...PETITIONER A N D Gajula Shankaraiah and another. …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 357 OF 2010 O R D E R: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 19.01.2010 in I.A. No. 223 of 2009 in A.S. No. 12 of 2009, on the file of the Family Court-cum- Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, whereunder and whereby, the application filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to send Ex.A1-pronote, dated 19.08.2002, to the hand writing expert, State Forensic Science Laboratory, Red Hills, Hyderabad, for comparison opinion, was dismissed. 2. O.S. No.149 of 2005, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, was filed by the petitioner for recovery of money basing on Ex.A1 promissory note. During the pendency of the suit, the first respondent used to sign in shortcut without full signature. After considering the evidence, the trial court dismissed the suit. The petitioner filed an appeal before Family Court-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar. Pending the appeal, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 223 of 2009, to send Ex.A1 along with signature on the deposition of PW-1 to the hand writing expert for comparison and opinion, and the same was dismissed. 3. Order XLI Rule 27(1) reads thus: 1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court. But a) the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or [aa) the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence , be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed, or] b) the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause, the Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced, or witness to be examined. 2) Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, the Court shall record the reason for its admission. 4. There is no reason whatsoever given in the affidavit filed in support of petition, for not exercising such right in the trial court immediately after examination of PW-1. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner case would not fall under any of these three conditions. Therefore, the question of sending the document Ex.A1 to the expert for comparison and opinion does not arise. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU. J MARCH 29, 2010. YVL