THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4511 OF 2011 ORDER: This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the docket order, dated 21-09-2011 in I.A.No.292 of 2011 in O.S.No.636 of 2009 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool. 2. The above application was filed by the petitioner- defendant under Order XXVI Rule 10 CPC and Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to send Ex.A2 to the expert to compare the signatures with admitted signature in Ex.A1 and the same was dismissed on the ground that earlier application filed for the self same relief was dismissed for default and thereafter, no steps have been taken. The entire evidence on behalf of both parties was completed. Thereafter on behalf of the plaintiff, arguments were also advanced. The suit was posted for hearing the arguments on behalf of the defendant. At that stage, the present application was filed. 3. In the written statement, no specific plea has been taken that the signature of the defendant on the back of the promissory note, dated 22-11-2006 is a forged one. What all stated by the defendant is that he did not pay any amount on 22-11-2006 and did not made an endorsement on the back of the pronote. An omnibus plea has been taken by the defendant in the written statement. Earlier application filed for the same relief was dismissed for default. Even though it is not on merits, but a party ordinarily cannot be permitted to file petition after petition for the same relief. The present application was filed at a belated stage without assigning any reasons. When the suit was posted for arguments on behalf of the defendant side, filing of the present application at this stage is only to drag on the proceedings. Therefore, the trial Court rightly dismissed the application and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 4. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ K.C. BHANU, J DATED: 21-10-2011 Hsd