THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1391 OF 2010 DATED:15.06.2010 Between: Ramireddy Rami Reddy .. Petitioner And Nadimpalli Satyavathi and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1391 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is the husband of the second respondent (hereafter called as defendant Nos.1 and 2). The first respondent instituted O.S.No.165 of 2007 for recovery of a sum of Rs.50,000/- based on a promissory note dated 12.08.2004. The petitioner and his wife are contesting the suit inter alia on the ground that the suit pronote is rank forgery and there is no necessity to borrow the amount from the plaintiff. The evidence of the plaintiff was completed. At the stage of adducing the evidence by the defendants, the first defendant filed I.A.No.2121 of 2009 under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (the Act) to send the suit promissory note for expert opinion. The same was opposed. The Court of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Thadepalligudam, where the suit is being tried, dismissed the application inter alia on the ground that the defendants are trying to drag on the matter and that in spite of giving number of opportunities he did not prosecute the case properly. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order suffers from the error apparent on the face of the record. He points out that when the evidence of defendants was not closed, the Court below wrongly observed that the evidence was closed. Secondly, he submits that even from the beginning the defendants have taken the plea that the suit pronote is forged and therefore no prejudice would be caused by sending the document to the expert opinion. It is axiomatic that if any error is committed by the Courts below sub-ordinate to the High Court, does not warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is also held by the Supreme Court that if any error is pointed out, the same should be challenged in a regular appeal, but not in a revision. After perusing the impugned order, this Court is convinced that the Court below has granted adequate opportunity to the defendants for adducing the evidence. Indeed, after filing the affidavit of PW.1 in lieu of chief examination, they chose to file the application under Section 45 of the Act. Secondly, when at the earliest point of time, they have taken a plea that the suit promissory note is forged, the defendants ought to have vigilant and ought to have filed application immediately. The very fact that the application was filed during the fag end of the trial would suggest that the attempt is being made to drag on the matter. In the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the revision under order. This Court also does not find any error which cannot be corrected at a later point of time by the appellate Court under Section 105(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Civil Revision Petition, for the above reasons, is dismissed. The trial Court is directed to complete the trial and dispose of the suit within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) 15.06.2010 KH