THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.695 of 2010 Dated:26.02.2010 Between: Sannidhi Satyanarayana Murthy (died), And others. …Petitioners And Bangaru Rajeswari. …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.695 of 2010 ORDER: This revision petition is against the order dated 23.11.2009 in I.A.No.1054 of 2006 in O.S.No.191 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram. By impugned order the Court below dismissed the said Interlocutory Application filed by the petitioners under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying the Court to send Ex.A1 (suit promissory note), to the Andhra Pradesh State Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad. The sole respondent herein filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- based on the suit promissory note against Sannidhi Satyanarayana Murthy. During the trial, Sannidhi Satyanarayana Murthy was examined as D.W.1 in chief. At that stage he died on 21.01.2006. His wife and children came on record as defendant Nos.2 to 8. Subsequently his wife (defendant No.2) also died. Defendant Nos.3 to 8/petitioner Nos.3 to 8 herein are contesting the suit. They filed I.A.No.1054 of 2006 alleging that the suit promissory note under Ex.A1 is forged, that it is fabricated, and that D.W.1 did not execute the document. They also alleged that such a plea was taken by D.W.1 at the earliest point of time. The same was dismissed by the impugned order. This Court heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, who points out that the Court below failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and that the order of the Court below is erroneous. The submission of the learned Counsel cannot be accepted. The Court below considered the matter thoroughly and dismissed the Interlocutory Application. The Court below also held that D.W.1 in his evidence on 09.12.2004 nowhere alleged that suit promissory note is forged and that he only took a plea that plaintiff obtained signatures on empty pronote papers and even after discharge of the debt, those blank promissory notes were not returned. Thus as found by the trial Court there was no plea of forgery in the pronote. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is unassailable. The Civil Revision Petition is misconceived, and the same is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 26.02.2010 vs