IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.3017 of 2009 Between: Challa Bhagawan Reddy, S/o.Papi Reddy, Aged 52 years, Occ: Agriculture, Raiparthi Village, Parkal Mandal, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND Racharla Chakrapani, S/o.Venkatnarsaiah, Aged about 50 years, Business, H.No.2-4-1615, Hanumakonda, Warangal District. .....RESPONDENT ORDER: Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. In spite of service of notice on the respondent, there is no appearance on his behalf. This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the defendant in O.S.No.190 of 2006 aggrieved by Order, dated 17-06-2009, passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, in I.A.No.99 of 2009. The suit in O.S.No.190 of 2006 was filed by the respondent-plaintiff for recovery of money based on a pronote. The petitioner-defendant had denied the execution of such pronote stating that the same was fabricated. Accordingly, he filed I.A.No.856 of 2008 under Section 45 of the Evidence Act seeking to send the disputed pronote, which was marked as Ex.A.1, for expert opinion with his admitted signatures on Vakalat and Written Statement. The trial Court by Order, dated 18-11-2008, allowed the said application on condition that the petitioner-defendant shall submit a document, which contains his signature pertaining to the year 2003, and that he shall deposit an amount of Rs.3,000/-. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner- defendant has deposited the money but he has not presented any document containing his signature pertaining to the year 2003. Subsequently, the petitioner-defendant filed I.A.No.99 of 2009 under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code again seeking to send his admitted signatures appearing on Vakalat and Written Statement for expert opinion for its comparison with the signatures appearing on Ex.A.1-Pronote. The trial Court passed the impugned order dismissing the said application by recording a finding that the petitioner-defendant has neither submitted any document as directed in its earlier Order, dated 18-11- 2008, in I.A.No.856 of 2008, nor filed any memo/petition stating that he is not in possession of any such document. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner- defendant in this case that as a document with his admitted signature pertaining to the year 2003 was not available, the petitioner-defendant filed I.A.No.99 of 2009, but the Court below, without recording valid reasons, dismissed the same. With reference to the above submission, it is to be noticed that the earlier order in I.A.No.856 of 2008 was passed by the trial Court on 18-11-2008. If the petitioner- defendant is aggrieved by any condition therein, he ought to have questioned the said order. After the said order has become final, the petitioner-defendant cannot seek similar directions by filing independent application vide I.A.No.99 of 2009. In view of the reason recorded by the trial Court that the petitioner-defendant has not filed any memo or petition objecting the condition imposed in earlier Order, dated 18- 11-2008, in I.A.No.856 of 2008 and filed I.A.No.99 of 2009 for the very same relief, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, if the document pertaining to the year 2003 is not available, it is for the petitioner-defendant to seek review of earlier order, dated 18-11-2008, in I.A.No.856 of 2008 or take any other steps to challenge any condition imposed therein. Keeping it open to the petitioner-defendant to take such steps, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J) 12th August, 2009 lur