PTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU C.R.P No.1228 of 2010 01-04-2010 Between: Mohd. Maqdoom Mohiuddin and others ...Petitioners Vs. O.Venkatarathanam and others ..Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU CRP NO.1228 OF 2010 ORAL ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 17.02.2010 made in I.A.No.884 of 2009 in O.S.No.111 of 2001 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore whereby and whereunder the application filed under Section 151 CPC requesting the Court to reopen the suit for consideration of a fresh petition to send Ex.A-1 to the Expert, was dismissed. The petitioners are plaintiffs and respondents are defendants in the suit. The plaintiffs filed suit in O.S.No.111 of 2001 for re- conveyance of the suit schedule property. Trial was commenced and evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs was closed and thereafter the evidence of the defendants was also closed. Arguments were advanced and the matter was posted for further arguments and at that stage, this application was filed for reopening of the case. There is no necessity of going into all the details. The trial court while dismissing I.A.No.884 of 2009 filed by the petitioners observed in paragraph No.9 as under:- “Considering the above referred decisions, and also considering the orders passed in I.A.No.610 of 2009 and also orders in I.A.No.609 of 2009, this court feels that the petitioner was not diligent when the petition was filed in I.A.No.610/2009 requesting the court to send Ex.B-1 document to the handwriting expert. During enquiry of the said petition or at least after filing counter by the other side or at least after hearing the arguments of respondents, the petitioner’s counsel not taken steps to amend the petition requesting the court to send Ex.A-1 document in stead of Ex.B-1. Even before the Hon’ble High Court in C.R.P.No.5031/2009 he has not rectified his alleged mistake. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to request the Court to again reopen the matter and to send Photostat copy of the alleged agreement of re-conveyance to the handwriting expert for comparison of signature in it with admitted signatures of 1st defendant in view of the decision referred-to by the respondents’ counsel, the Photostat copy cannot be sent to the Handwriting Expert for comparison. Further, the petitioners not examined the person who took the Xerox copy of the document i.e., Ex.A-1.” Therefore this court is of the opinion that the trial court has not committed any error in doing so. The above noticed paragraph is an explanatory one. The civil revision petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 1st APRIL 2010 *TSNR