THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3888 of 2011 ORDER: 1 This revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner who is the defendant in O.S.No.284 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, aggrieved by the order dated 15.07.2011 passed in I.A.No.465 of 2011 in the said suit. 2 The respondent/plaintiff filed the said suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 16.03.2007. In the suit, the evidence on behalf of the respondent / plaintiff was already closed. Even on behalf of the petitioner / defendant also D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined. In the written statement, the petitioner has denied the execution of Ex.A.1 document i.e. agreement of sale deed stating that it is forged and fabricated one and the same is prepared to grab his land. 3 When P.Ws.1 and 2 were already examined, the petitioner has filed the present application i.e. I.A.No.465 of 2011 requesting the Court to send the documents which are executed by the petitioner and also Ex.A.1 document to Forensic Science Laboratory for its opinion with regard to the genuineness of the document. The Court below, by the order impugned in this revision, has dismissed the said application. Hence the present revision. 4 In this revision, it is the case of the petitioner that even in the affidavit filed in I.A.No.465 of 2011 it is stated that the Ex.A.1 document, relied upon by the respondent / plaintiff, is a forged and fabricated one and the same is visible to the naked eye to show that it is a forged one. When the petitioner has already taken such a stand in the written statement, it is for the respondent to prove that the document is a genuine one. In that view of the matter, it is not for the petitioner to seek the opinion at this stage. It is also to be noticed that the suit is of the year 2007. The evidence of the witnesses on behalf of the respondent / plaintiff was closed. Even on behalf of the petitioner / defendant also D.Ws.1 and 2 were already examined. In that view of the matter and in view of the reasons recorded by the Court below, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the order impugned in this revision. 5 Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that in this revision, this court has not expressed any opinion on the genuineness of the document in question and it is open for the court below to go into the said issue while delivering judgment in the suit. No costs. -------------------------- R.Subhash Reddy, J. 04.11.2011 Kvsn