THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1035 OF 2011 Dated: 25.03.2011 Between: Chintalapati Bhanumathi and others ..... Petitioners And Chintalapati Ramakrishnam Raju and others ….. Respondents The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1035 OF 2011 ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the order dated 25.02.2011 in I.A.No.304 of 2011 in O.S.No.73 of 2006 on the file of the Family Court Cum VII Additional District Court, West Godavari. The revision petitioners are the defendants 4 to 6 in the suit. The 2nd respondent herein filed the said suit for declaration of title in respect of his 1/4th share in the suit schedule property basing on an unregistered will dated 20.05.2003 executed by late Chintalapati Suryanarayana Raju. While the matter was coming up for the defendants’ evidence, the 3rd defendant/the 1st respondent herein filed I.A.No.303 of 2011 with a prayer to send for the original documents from Bhimavaram Co- operative Urban Bank Limited, which contained the admitted signatures of the late Chintalapati Suryanarayana Raju. He also filed I.A.No.304 of 2011 to send Ex.A1-Will to the Hand Writing Expert for comparing the signatures thereon with the admitted signatures of Chintalapati Suryanarayana Raju. The Court below by separate orders dated 25.02.2011 allowed both the applications on payment of costs of Rs.500/-. Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.304 of 2011, the defendants 4 to 6 filed this revision petition. Heard the learned counsel for both parties. At the outset, it is to be noticed that the revision petitioners did not challenge the order in I.A.No.303 of 2011 and allowed it to become final. At any rate, since the evidence of the defendants is still going on, it cannot be held that the applications were filed at a belated stage. Absolutely no case could be made out to show that impugned order has caused prejudice to the defendants 4 to 6/revision petitioners. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the discretion exercised by the Court below in allowing I.A.No.304 of 2011 cannot be termed as perverse and therefore, the order under revision warrants no interference by this Court in exercise of the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ___________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 25.03.2011 Ivd