THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2783 OF 2010 O R D E R: The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs. They filed I.A.No. 341 of 2009 in O.S.No. 55 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Sathupally, under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act read with 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for purposes of sending Ex.B1, a registered sale deed, dated 03.01.1992 said to have been executed by their father in favour of the defendants, for an expert’s opinion, after comparing it with documents Exs.B3 to B6, which are said to be manuscript letters written by the deceased father of the plaintiffs. That Application has been resisted by the respondents. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, while disputing the necessity to send Ex.B1 document for an expert’s opinion, the respondents have specifically pointed out that late Sri Ch. Srirama Murthy executed two sale deeds bearing No. 4570 of 1993 and 5230/93, dated 06.12.1993 in favour of a 3rd party. Those are also registered sale deeds. Consequently, the thumb impressions and signature of Sri Ch. Srirama Murthy are preserved in the records maintained by the Sub-Registrar at Sathupally. Therefore, they have pointed out that they have no objection for summoning the records from the Sub-Registrar, Sathupally with reference to the aforesaid two sale deeds and compare Ex.B1 with them. This counter affidavit in the I.A. has been filed by the respondents as on 22.02.2010. The plaintiffs have nearly two more months available with them before the said I.A. has been decided by the Court. They have not changed their pleadings nor did they file a memo into the Court agreeing for sending Ex.B1 document for examination by an expert along with the two sale deeds referred to supra, after securing the documents from the office of the Sub-Registrar, Sathupally. In those set of circumstances, the trial Court has dismissed the I.A. for two reasons: 1) that the I.A. has been moved at a belated stage, practically during the course of collection of evidence by the parties; 2) that Exs.B3 to B6 are not admitted documents, for drawing any comparison between them and Ex.B1 registered sale deed dated 03.01.1992. The reasons assigned by the Court below are fairly sound. If the plaintiffs have filed a memo for sending the two sale deeds referred to by the respondents/defendants, for the purpose of examination by an expert, perhaps, things would have been different. Since the plaintiffs have not demonstrated their bona fides and urgency in the matter, it is not an appropriate case where this Court should exercise the revisional jurisdiction to upset the order passed by the trial Court. Hence, I do not see any merit in this Civil Revision Petition and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 25th November 2011 ksld