HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISON PETITION No.468 of 2011 Date : 01.03.2011 Between : Gurram Venkata Murali & another. …..Petitioners And Smt. Tatavarthi Srilatha & another. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISON PETITION No.468 of 2011 ORDER : This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the defendants in the suit in O.S.No.142 of 2006 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kavali, aggrieved by the order, dated 06.10.2010, passed in I.A.No.352 of 2010. By the aforesaid order, the application filed by petitioners herein under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, is dismissed. The respondents filed the suit for recovery of money, based on a pronote executed by the petitioners herein. The petitioners have admitted the execution of promotes, but denied the endorsement, dated 18th October 2003, marked as Ex.A-4. In view of the said disputed signatures, earlier, on the application filed by the petitioners, documents were sent for comparison of signatures, to the Forensic Laboratory, Hyderabad, as per the orders in I.A.No.409 of 2009, dated 05.10.2009. The said laboratory returned the documents, asking to send “extensive admitted signatures”, but the petitioners, despite granting reasonable time, have failed to furnish the signatures. In that view of the matter, having failed to furnish signatures as per the objections of the laboratory inspite of giving time by the Court below, the petitioners have approached again with similar application in I.A.No.352 of 2010. Referring to earlier orders passed in I.A.No.409 of 2009, the Court below rejected the application. Even this Court is of the view that when the petitioners have failed to furnish the further admitted signatures, they cannot come up with fresh application, at this belated time. In view of the reasons stated by the Court below in the order impugned, I do not find any illegality in the said order, warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 1st March 2011 ajr