THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1050 of 2011 ORDER: Respondent No.1 filed O.S.No.17 of 1997 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram against respondent Nos.2 and 3 for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. The petitioner was impleaded as defendant No.3 in the suit on the basis of the alleged agreement of sale said to have been executed in his favour by respondent Nos.2 and 3. The suit is said to be at the stage of arguments. The petitioner filed I.A.No.913 of 2008 under Section 45 of the Evidence Act with a prayer to send the agreement of sale, dated 29.08.1982, for the opinion of an expert. The application was opposed by respondent No.1. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through order, dated 11.03.2011. The same is challenged in this revision. Heard Sri G.Vasantha Rayudu, learned counsel for the petitioner. Respondent No.1 did not claim any relief against the petitioner herein. The question as to whether respondent Nos.2 and 3 have executed the agreement of sale in favour of the petitioner and if so, the affect thereof would become relevant only in the event of a preliminary decree being granted. Even if the agreement is true, he cannot insist that the property covered by the said agreement be allowed to the shares of respondent Nos.2 and 3. Beyond that, the agreement has no relevance at this stage. The trial Court has taken the correct view of the matter. The suit cannot be permitted to be pending any longer. Hence, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.15.04.2011. kdl