THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3402 OF 2010 DATED:06.04.2011 Between: Koya Sujatha & 3 others. .... PETITIONERS And Vallabhi Nageswar Rao. .... RESPONDENT ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 18.06.2010, in I.A.No.734 of 2010 in O.S.No.94 of 2006 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Khammam, wherein the application filed by the petitioners herein–defendants, requesting the Court to send the disputed suit promissory note and payment endorsement to the handwriting expert for opinion and also to send for the documents containing the admitted signatures from the Andhra Bank, was dismissed on the ground that two distinct reliefs cannot be prayed for in a single application and the same is violative of the Civil Rules of Practice. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that by inadvertence, two reliefs were prayed for in the same application and the petitioners would confine the same to one relief, namely under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, seeking expert’s opinion on the disputed documents and he would file separate application regarding the other relief of sending for the document containing admitted signature from the Andhra Bank. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the application filed about 7½ years after filing of the suit is highly belated and the same cannot be entertained at this stage and the petitioner also did not file any documents containing the admitted signatures of the deceased and even the particulars of the bank account in the Andhra Bank are also not furnished. 5. As seen from the impugned order, the trial Court has not gone into the merits of the petition and dismissed the same solely on the ground that two distinct reliefs cannot be prayed for in a single application. The two reliefs prayed for are certainly distinct and different, one being a request to send the document to a handwriting expert and the other to send for certain documents from the Andhra Bank. The trial Court ought to have returned the application at the threshold stage so that the petitioner would have confined the same to one relief or the trial Court would have disposed of the application on merits in respect of one relief only. 6. In the circumstances and in view of the submission made by the learned counsel that the present application is confined only to the relief under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is considered just and proper to remit the matter to the trial Court to dispose of the application afresh, confining the petition to the relief under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act on merits. It is open to the respondent-plaintiff to raise all permissible contentions, including those raised in the present Civil Revision Petition before the trial Court. 7. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the trial Court for fresh disposal according to law, in the light of the observations made hereinabove. Petitioner is at liberty to approach the trial Court and file a separate application to send for the document in the event of this application being disposed of in his favour. 8. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. Interim stay granted on 06.08.2010 stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 06th April, 2011. Tsy