HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH C.R.P. No. 6336 of 2009 DATED: 15.07.2011 Between: Rekha Venkataramaiah .. Petitioner And Y. Balaiah and seven others .. Respondents O R D E R:- This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the Order dated 25.11.2009 made in I.A. No. 189 of 2009 in A.S. No. 18 of 2008 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Narsaraopet, Guntur District whereby the petition filed by the revision petitioner seeking to send Exs.B1 and B3 to the C.B.I. Forensic Science Laboratory, New Delhi, for the purpose of comparison and opinion, was dismissed. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff, who filed O.S No. 191 of 2005 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Vinukonda for specific performance of agreement of sale deed dated 17.08.1998 against the respondents herein. In fact, before the same Judge, a suit in O.S. No. 17 of 1999 filed by respondent Nos.7 and 8 for specific performance of agreement dated 12.10.1998 was pending and as the properties involved in both the suits are common, they were clubbed and tried together, and while the suit filed by the petitioner herein was dismissed, the suit filed by respondent Nos.7 and 8 was decreed. It is the case of the petitioner that in pursuance of Ex.B1 – agreement of sale dated 17.08.1998, part payments were made by him under Exs. B2 and B3, as such, his agreement is true and valid, whereas the case of respondent Nos.7 and 8 in their suit is that Ex.B1 -agreement of sale was forged, concocted and brought into existence in collusion with the parties to the agreement of sale. It is further stated that the signatures of one of the executants on Ex.B1 - sale deed are disputed, and the trial Court has decreed the suit filed by respondent Nos.7 and 8 herein holding that Ex.B1 – document was fabricated, brought into existences and concocted to defeat the claim of the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 17 of 1999. It is also stated that the pleading of respondent Nos.7 and 8 in their written statement to the effect that the signatures on Ex.B1 do not belong to one of the executants, was not appreciated by the trial Court, and therefore, there is any amount of need or necessity for sending Ex.B1 for expert’s opinion. It is stated that against the finding of the trial Court in not considering their contention that the signatures of one of the executants on Ex.B1 – sale deed, was not appreciated, respondent Nos.7 and 8 have not filed any appeal, and the petitioner herein filed an appeal against rejection of his suit holding that Ex.B1 – sale deed is a concocted, brought into existence, and to defeat the claim of the defendants. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.7 and 8 and perused the order under revision. During the course of arguments, it is submitted that the respondents are going to argue the matter before the lower appellate Court, where the appeal is pending adjudication, with regard to the genuineness or otherwise of the signatures of one of the executants on Ex.B1, which is said to have been brought into existence in collusion with the parties therein and to defeat the claim of the defendants, and is the only subject matter to be adjudicated before the lower appellate Court on appreciation of the evidence available on record. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the finding arrived at by the lower appellate Court that Exs.B1 and B3 need not be sent for expert’s opinion, does not warrant any interference by this Court. For the foregoing reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ V. ESWARAIAH, J 15.07.2011 bcj