THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3719 & 3814 OF 2009 DATED: 11-11-2009 C.R.P.No.3719 of 2009 Between: Duvvada Venkati. ..... PETITIONER And Alluri Sivannarayana Raju & 8 others. .....RESPONDENTS C.R.P.No.3814 of 2009 Between: Duvvada Venkati. ..... PETITIONER And Alluri Sivannarayana Raju & 8 others. .....RESPONDENTS COMMON ORDER: These two Civil Revision Petitions are directed against the common order in I.A.Nos.182 and 183 of 2009 in O.S.No.42 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Parvathipuram. 2. As the two petitions arise out of the common order, between the same parties and involve the same question of fact, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners-defendants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff. Perused the record. 4. The 1st respondent herein filed the said suit against the petitioner and respondents 2 to 9 for recovery of the amount due under a promissory note said to have been executed by late Janardhana Rao, son of the petitioner herein. After recording of evidence was completed, the petitioner herein filed an application in I.A.No.182 of 2009 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ( for brevity, ‘the Act’) for sending the disputed promissory note-Ex.A1 to a handwriting expert for comparison and opinion regarding the signature of the executant-Janardhana Rao. He also filed I.A.No.183 of 2009 under Order 16 Rule 6 CPC to summon the Sub-Post Master to produce the application said to have been submitted by the said Janardhana Rao for obtaining insurance policy, dated 03-11-2003, which is said to be containing the admitted signature of the said Janardhana Rao. By the impugned common order, the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed both the applications. Aggrieved of the same, the present Civil Revision Petitions are filed. 5. It is not disputed that even previously also, the petitioner- defendant filed an application in I.A.No.232 of 2008 seeking the self-same relief under Section 45 of the Act to send the disputed promissory note to the handwriting expert for comparison of the signature of the executant. The said application was dismissed on merits on 18-09-2008, inter alia, on the ground that no contemporaneous documents, containing admitted signatures of the executant-Janardhana Rao, were filed. It is also not disputed that the said order has become final. About a year back, the present application is filed seeking the self-same relief together with another application to summon the application said to have been submitted by the said Janardhana Rao on 03-11-2003 for obtaining the insurance policy from the sub-post office, Terlam, Srikakulam District. 6. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-plaintiff, there is absolutely no reason for not taking any immediate steps after dismissal of the earlier application and the fact that the present applications are filed one year thereafter even after the suit reached the stage of arguments would only show that the present applications are intended to protract further proceedings. As rightly observed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, even now, no documents, containing any admitted signatures of the deceased-Janardhana Rao, are filed by the 1st respondent. Though the application for insurance policy which is sought to be summoned from the sub-post office is dated 03-11-2003, which is not very distant from the date of execution of the suit promissory note in 2004, still the said document cannot be treated as an admitted document, in the sense that the 1st respondent-plaintiff is not admitting the said document or the signature contained therein. There has been no substantial change of circumstances since the dismissal of the earlier application warranting the reconsideration of the request of the petitioner-D1 to send the suit promissory note to a handwriting expert. On the other hand, the very filing of the present petitions by way of second round, almost one year after the dismissal of the earlier applications, and that too long after the matter has reached the stage of arguments, on conclusion of the recording of the evidence, would only show that the present applications are intended to protract the proceedings in the suit. There are no merits in these applications. 7. In the result, Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 11th November, 2009 Tsy