THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.5679 of 2009 Dated:04th December, 2009 Between: 1.Nallapaneni Aruna Kumari & Anr. ..... Petitioners AND Ravula Aruna .....Respondent *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.5679 of 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 29.10.2009 passed in I.A.No.1087 of 2009 in O.S.No.910 of 2008 on the file of V Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed under Section 45 of the Evidence Act r/w. Sec.151 CPC. 2. When the CRP came-up for admission, Sri N.Subba Rao, learned counsel received notice on behalf of the respondent/caveator. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/defendants and learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/defendants submits that the opinion of the expert with regard to age of the ink appearing on the suit pronote is essential in view of the plea taken by the defendants that the plaintiff obtained their signatures on the blank pronotes in the year 2005 and made use of them for fabricating the suit pronote in the year 2006. A further submission has been made that the application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act can be moved at any stage. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff submits that the petitioners admitted their signatures on the suit pronote and more so, the first defendant, who has been examined as DW.1 on oath, admitted that her sons Nallapaneni Sarath Kumar and Nallapaneni Maruthi Babu are the attestors of the Ex.A1 pronote and Ex.A1 pronote bears her signature and the signature of her husband. 6. Indisputably, the parties to the proceedings closed their evidence and the suit is coming up for arguments. It is stated by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff that the respondent/plaintiff addressed her arguments and the case is coming up for submitting the arguments on behalf of the defendants. The first defendant while being examined as DW.1 categorically admitted of her signature and the signature of her husband on Ex.A1 pronote. Such is the situation, the order passed by the trial Court dismissing the application filed under Section 47 of the Evidence Act r/w. Sec.151 CPC does not warrant interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:04th December, 2009. Cs THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.5679 of 2009 Dated:04th December, 2009