HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.56 OF 2010 DATE:22-01-2010 BETWEEN K.Ramakrishna Gangadhar Rama Rao …Petitioner AND Yelamanchili Padmavathi & Another. …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.56 OF 2010 ORDER: This revision under Article 227 of Constitution of India is directed by the appellant-first defendant against the orders of VII Additional District Judge, Kakinada, dated 20.11.2009 in dismissing I.A.No.25 of 2009 in A.S.No.106 of 2005 filed for sending of Ex.A.1-agreement along with signatures of 1st appellant-defendant on Vakalat, written statement and other admitted signatures to the Government handwriting expert for comparison. Admittedly, the suit was instituted by the respondent herein for specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 12.6.1987 against the petitioner herein. In the written statement filed by the petitioner it was alleged that his late father obtained his signatures on blank stamp papers and the said papers were pressed into service by fabricating Ex.A.1-sale agreement, basing on which, the suit for specific performance was filed and decreed by the trial Court. Once the petitioner admitted the subscription of his signature on the alleged blank papers and in his evidence as D.W.1 deposed that his own sister-D.W.2 is contending that she executed possessory agreement of sale but she do not remember whether her father had taken her signatures on blank white papers and stamped papers, it is sufficient to hold that the plea of forgery of the petitioner-first defendant is nothing but false and untenable. The lower Court after going through the evidence of D.W.1, which shows that the petitioner had affixed his signature on Ex.A.1 agreement knowing fully well, held that the plea that Ex.A.1 is a rank forgery cannot be accepted and accordingly dismissed the impugned I.A. Inasmuch as the petitioner admitted subscription of his signature on Ex.A.1-agreement, burden lies on him to establish that he is in the habit of signing on blank papers including the suit document. The discretion exercised by the lower Court in dismissing the impugned I.A. does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court. The revision fails and is accordingly dismissed at the threshold, but without costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. JANUARY 22, 2010 Tsr.