HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 990 OF 2010. DATED 3RD SEPTEMBER, 2010. BETWEEEN Kathi Madhubala …..Petitioner and Previously Sri Ramanjaneya Raw Rice and Boiled Rice Mill, Thottempudi, rep. By its Managing Partner Sree Srinivasa Rice Mill, rep. By Managing Partner Alla Koti Reddy and ors … Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 990 OF 2010. ORDER: The petitioner who is the plaintiﬀ ﬁled the present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India inter alia seeking to assail the correctness of the order dated 28.1.2010, whereby the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Judge, Family Court, Guntur, dismissed I.A.No. 31 of 2010 ﬁled under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send Ex.X.1 dated 6.10.1990 to the expert for comparison. The petitioner ﬁled the suit for settlement of accounts of ﬁrst respondent or in the alternative for dissolution of the ﬁrst respondent ﬁrm. Even according to the petitioner, this application has been ﬁled when the suit is posted for arguments. However, the Court below did not ﬁnd favour for the petitioner by going into the merits of the application and held that there is no need to show any indulgence on these type of applications ﬁled at belated stage. Holding so, the Court below dismissed the petition. Heard the learned Counsel on either side. Perused the material on record. During the course of hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court the decisions rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in similar matters in Guru Govindu Vs. Devarapu Venkataramana[1] and Md.Tajuddin Vs.Md.Abdul Rahman[2]. Following the decisions of the learned Single Judge of this Court referred supra, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of directing that the question as to whether the disputed document must be sent for opinion of an expert shall be kept open. In case, the trial Court feels that it can record a ﬁnding on this aspect, there shall not be any necessity to send the document for an opinion. On the other hand, if it feels that such an opinion is necessary, it can take necessary steps in that regard. There shall be no order as to costs. ----------------------------------------- JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO 3rd SEPTEMBER, 2010. Msnr. [1] 2006(5) ALT 17 [2] 2008(1) ALD 573