HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. No.4657 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 23.7.2010 made in I.A. No. 46 of 2010 in O.S No. 1736 of 2005 on the file of the XI Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S. No. 1736 of 2005 seeking to declare Gift Settlement Deed, Ex.A1 and will deed, Ex.A2, dated 18.1.2005 and 26.2.2003 respectively, as null and void. In that suit, they filed I.A. No. 46 of 2010 under Section 45 of the Evidence Act seeking to send Ex.A2, will deed, dated 26.6.2003 which was allegedly executed by their mother in favour of the 1st defendant and the undisputed documents Exs.A3, A12 and Ex.A13 to A16 to a handwriting expert for opinion. While opposing the application, the defendants filed their counter affidavit contending that Ex.A3 passport etc., are not contemporaneous to Ex.A2, will deed and thus the same cannot be sent for expert opinion and while taking into account the fact that P.W.1 has also admitted in his cross-examination that his mother has executed the will deed. The learned Senior Civil Judge, by the order impugned in this revision dated 23.7.2010 dismissed the said I.A. Aggrieved, the 1st plaintiff filed the present revision. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. Admittedly, the suit is of the year 2005 and the plaintiffs filed the present application seeking to send Ex.A2 will deed, for comparison to handwriting expert in the year 2010, i.e., nearly after a period of five years after the filing of the suit. The suit is at the stage of arguments and at that stage, the plaintiffs filed the present I.A. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to send Ex.A2, will deed to a handwriting expert for comparison, at this distance of time. The trial Court taking all these aspects into consideration, rightly dismissed the application filed by the plaintiffs. I, therefore, do not find any material illegality or irregularity in the order impugned in this revision warranting interference at the hands of this Court. The revision petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage. However, since the suit is of the year 2005, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the same, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ___________________ T. MEENA KUMARI,J Date: 8th October, 2010 pnb