HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4774 of 2009 Date: 28.10.2009 Between: J.S.Nagaraju … Petitioner And V.R.Gangadharappa … Respondents HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No. 4774 of 2009 ORDER: The revision petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.24 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur. The suit is filed for specific performance of agreement, dated 06.09.2006, allegedly executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for sale of the suit schedule property. It is pleaded in the plaint that the defendant had originally executed an agreement dated 02.08.2006 in favour of one Mangamma and subsequently, since the said Mangamma was unable to purchase the property in question, the property was offered for sale to the plaintiff and accordingly, the suit agreement dated 06.09.2006 was executed. The defendant filed a detailed written statement denying the entire version of the plaintiff. During the trial, the agreements dated 02.08.2006 and 06.09.2006 were marked as Exs.A.1 and A.2 respectively. Ex.A.3 was the endorsement said to have made by the defendant on the reverse of Ex.A.2 agreement. The plaintiff got himself examined as P.W.1 and one of the attestors of Ex.A.2 and A.3 was examined as P.W.2. Another attestor of Ex.A.3 was examined as P.W.3. The son of the agreement holder dated 02.08.2006 was also examined as P.W.4. At that stage, the defendant filed I.A.No.265 of 2009 with a prayer to send the two agreements to a hand writing expert to find out the variations in the signatures of the defendant. The Court below, after hearing both the parties, dismissed the application holding that in the light of the evidence already adduced by the witnesses, the opinion of the expert is not necessary. Aggrieved by the same, this Revision Petition is filed by the defendant. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in detail. In the light of the denial of the defendant that he has never executed the agreement dated 02.08.2006 in favour of Mangamma or the later agreement dated 06.09.2006 in favour of the plaintiff, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish the suit agreement. In the light of the evidence already produced, the Court below thought that it was not necessary to send the documents for expert opinion. It is also relevant to note that the defendant who had denied his signatures on both the documents wanted to send the said documents for expert opinion without producing his admitted signature of the contemporary period. In the circumstances, the Court below cannot be said to have committed any error in declining to send the documents for expert opinion. As the order under Revision does not suffer from any patent error of fact or law, the interference by this Court in exercise of the Supervisory Jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not warranted. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ___________ G. ROHINI, J. Date: 28.10.2009 KLP