THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4940 OF 2010 Date: 19-11-2010 Between Manda Venkatarami Reddy …..Petitioner And Mareedu Venkata Nagavara Parasuram …..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4940 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner who is the defendant in the suit O.S No. 148 of 2007 filed by the respondent - plaintiff for recovery of the amount based on promissory note filed I.A No. 570 of 2009 under Order XI Rule 14 CPC to call for the thumb impression register of Sub- Registrar’s Office relating to the registered sale deed dated 29-03-2004 vide document No. 178/2004 for sending the same to the hand writing expert for comparison with the signature on the suit promissory note. On dismissal of the same by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Fast Track Court, Gidivada, the present revision is filed. It is not disputed that the petitioner filed written statement on 25- 10-2007 and later trial was commenced in which PWs 1 to 3 filed affidavits in lieu of chief examination on 23-07-2008 and they were cross examined by him on 02-04-2009 and later the matter was posted for evidence on his side and as he did not adduce any evidence, his evidence was closed on 22-04-2009. At that stage, the petitioner filed I.A No. 187 of 2009 to reopen the suit and to permit him to adduce evidence. On allowing of the said I.A, he filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination on 04-08-2009 and cross examination was postponed for three times and ultimately, he was cross examined on 25-08-2009 and again the matter underwent adjournments for further evidence on his side. Ultimately, DW 2 was cross-examined on 05-10-2009 and thereafter, the matter was posted for arguments. At that stage, the matter was reopened at the instance of the plaintiff to recall PW 1 who was examined on 01-12-2009 and after that, the matter was posted for arguments on 08-12-2009. At that stage, the petitioner filed the present application with the prayer as stated above and two other applications to reopen the suit and to call for the loan application, which clearly shows that he was not diligent in filing the applications which he could have filed immediately after the issues were framed. Even otherwise, if there are discrepancies in the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 as stated by the petitioner in the affidavit, even after closure of the plaintiff’s evidence, he could have taken steps but he has not done so and has chosen to examine himself as DW 1 and another witness as DW 2 to substantiate his plea and, therefore, filing the present applications is only to protract the litigation. Hence, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application and the same does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference of this Court. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. A. GOPAL REDDY, J 19-11-2010 ks