THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.2140 of 2011 Date:10th August, 2011 Between: Kakarla Savithramma died her L.Rs. Kakarla Venkata Subba Naidu S/o.Subbaiah, Aged about 56 years, R/o.Konapuram Village, Nandalur Mandal, Kadapa District. .....Petitioner AND Marothu Subbarayudu S/o.Chinnaiah, aged about 54 years, Occu:Business, R/o.Ahmed Nagar, Rajampet Town and Mandal, Kadapa District. .....Respondent *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.2140 of 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 18.04.2011, passed in I.A.No.62 of 2011 in O.S.No.151 of 2007 on the file of the Junior Civil Jude, Rajampet, Kadapa District, whereby and whereunder, the learned Junior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/2nd defendant under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. 2. Background facts, in a nutshell, leading to filing of this revision by the petitioner are: The respondent herein is the plaintiff and the petitioner herein is the 2nd defendant in O.S.No.151 of 2007 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Rajampet, Kadapa District. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money basing on a promissory note, dated 15.06.2005. The petitioner/2nd defendant entered appearance in the suit and filed written statement disputing the execution of the suit promissory note. The petitioner/2nd defendant filed I.A.No.505 of 2010 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send the suit promissory note along with admitted signatures of Kakarla Savithramma to the handwriting expert for comparison. The said I.A. came to be allowed subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards expert fee. Consequent on failure of the petitioner/2nd defendant to deposit the expert fee, the said application ended in dismissal on 19.11.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner/2nd defendant filed another application being I.A.No.62 of 2011 for the selfsame relief. The respondent/plaintiff resisted the said application. The learned Junior Civil Judge, on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties and on considering the material brought on record, proceeded to dismiss the application, by order dated 18.04.2011. Relevant portion of the said order reads as hereunder: “On considering the arguments of the respective counsel and verification of the records it appears that, previously the petitioner filed I.A.No.505/2010 for sending the disputed signatures and admitted signature to the expert for comparison and his opinion which was dismissed, on 19.11.2010 when the petitioner failed to comply the conditional order. Then the matter is posted for trial the plaintiff filed his chief examination affidavit and confirmed the same and posted for cross examination, on that stage, the petitioner changed his advocate and filed the present I.A., the petitioner submissions that his previous advocate not informed the conditional order passed by this Hon’ble Court is not convincing on my considered opinion, the petitioner intentionally failed to deposit the expert fee as directed by this Hon’ble Court and come with the present petition again for the same relief. There is no bonafides in this petition and I am not accepting the submission o the petitioner and the petition is only to drag on the proceedings. In the above observations, I held that there is no bonafides in this petition. Hence, it is liable to be dismissed with out costs.” The Order passed in the said I.A. is assailed in this revision. 3. Notice before admission came to be issued on 20.06.2011. The respondent received notice and entered appearance through a counsel. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/2nd defendant and learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner herein earlier filed I.A.No.505 of 2010 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send the suit promissory note along with admitted signatures of Kakarla Savithramma to the handwriting expert for comparison. The said application came to be allowed and the petitioner/2nd defendant was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards expert fee. The said application ended in dismissal for non-payment of expert fee. It is for the petitioenr/2nd defendant to take steps to get the dismissal order set aside by moving a separate application. Filing second application for the self same relief cannot be entertained. 6. In that view of the matter, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to file an application seeking restoration of I.A.No.505 of 2010, which came to be dismissed for non- payment of expert fee of Rs.5,000/-. In case of any application being filed by the petitioner/2nd defendant, the trial Court has to consider the same uninfluenced by any of the observations made in I.A.No.62 of 2011. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:10th August, 2011. Note: Issue C.C. within a week. B/O cs THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.2140 of 2011 Date:10th August, 2011