IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2950 and 3031 of 2011 Between: B.Prakasa Rao … Petitioner And B.Bushanamma … Respondent This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2950 and 3031 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: - These two revisions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution by the petitioner/defendant to revise the dismissal orders passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada in I.A.No.694 and 695 of 2010 in O.S.No.265 of 2010 filed to reopen the case and to send Ex.A1 mortgage deed in O.S.No.433 of 2009 on the file of V Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada for the purpose of comparison with the signature of the defendant in Ex.A1 in O.S.No.265 of 2010. The suit is filed for recovery of amount based on the promissory note Ex.A1, dated 01.03.2007, in which after closure of the evidence when the matter is posted for arguments on 05.07.2011, the present application has been filed by the petitioner/defendant for sending Ex.A1 in O.S.No.433 of 2009 to compare his signature with that of Ex.A1 in O.S.No.265 of 2010 contending that Ex.A1 in O.S.No.433 of 2009 was executed in favour of the husband of the respondent/plaintiff by the sister of the petitioner/defendant; that the petitioner signed as a witness in the said document on 31.08.2002 and on the said date he signed a blank promissory note on 31.08.2002, which was given as security in the presence of the plaintiff and her husband, but not on 01.03.2007. Respondent/plaintiff filed counter opposing the petition stating that in Ex.B6, there is no mention of taking signature on blank promissory note from the defendant therein; that during the cross- examination, the petitioner/D.W.1 admitted that he was present along with his sister and gave instructions to prepare Ex.B6; that he has not taken any defence in the suit that his signatures were obtained on the blank promissory note by the husband of the plaintiff at the time of execution of the mortgage deed, which is nothing but an addition; that since the petitioner as D.W.1 in his evidence admitted his signature on Ex.A1 and that the mortgage deed was attested by him, no purpose would be served to compare the admitted signatures with regard to the pen and ink. The lower court dismissed the I.A. holding that once the petitioner/D.W.1 admitted in his evidence about his signature on Ex.A1 and that he acted as one of the attestors to the mortgage deed, dated 31.08.2002, executed by his elder sister namely Vijayamma when she borrowed Rs.one lakh from the husband of the plaintiff, the present application filed at the stage of arguments is nothing but protraction of the litigation and, accordingly, dismissed the I.A. In the absence of any suggestion made to the plaintiff about the obtaining of blank papers in consonance with the pleadings, the petitioner cannot reopen the same at this belated stage. In view of the same, no infirmity is discernable with the order passed by the court below. The Civil Revision Petitions are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J 05-08-2011 lmv HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2950 and 3031 of 2011 Dt: 05-08-2011 lmv