IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.5617 & 5620 of 2009 CRP No.5617 of 2009 Between: Kanchu Ramulu ..... Petitioner AND Thadi Srinivasa Reddy .....Respondent Counsel for the petitioner : Smt. K. Jayashree Counsel for the respondent : Sri Tarlada Rajesekhara Rao The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.5617 & 5620 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: These two Civil Revision Petitions arise out of O.S.No.83 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam. The defendant in the suit is the petitioner in these two Civil Revision Petitions. The respondent herein filed the suit for recovery of certain amounts based on Ex.A1, promissory note, stated to have been executed by the petitioner. The petitioner has filed a written statement, wherein he has denied execution of the pro-note. The trial was commenced during which as many as three witnesses were examined on behalf of the respondent – plaintiff. After completion of the trial, arguments were commenced and the plaintiff’s arguments were closed. It is at that stage that the petitioner filed I.A.Nos.800 and 801 of 2009. The former I.A. was filed for reopening of the case for sending Ex.A1 for expert’s opinion and the latter I.A. was filed for sending Ex.A1 for expert’s opinion. The respondent resisted these two applications by filing counter affidavits. By detailed orders dated 14.10.2009, the Court below has dismissed both these applications. Feeling aggrieved by these orders, the present Civil Revision Petitions are filed. At the hearing, Smt. K. Jayashree, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Court below has discretion to reopen the suit and send the disputed document for expert’s opinion at any stage of the suit. She placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in M/s. Janachaitanya Housing Ltd., Ameerpet vs. M/s. Divya Financiers[1]. Sri T. Rajasekhara Rao, learned counsel for the respondent, opposed the above contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the record. In the affidavit filed in support of the applications, the petitioner has failed to point out any reason whatsoever for filing the applications at a time when the suit was coming up for his arguments. The Division Bench in its judgment, referred to above, on which the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance, held that no hard and fast rule can be laid down with regard to the stage at which a request for sending a document for expert’s opinion can be accepted by the trial Court and that it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Ordinarily, a request for sending the document for expert’s opinion is made before commencement of trial. However, in exceptional cases where the Court is satisfied that if such a request is not accepted, it may result in manifest injustice to the party and that the party had despite exercise of due diligence could not make the application at earlier point of time, such a request can be accepted. As noted above, though the petitioner has taken the specific stand in the written statement that he has never executed the suit pro- note, he has not filed any application to send the document for expert’s opinion till the trial and the arguments on behalf of the plaintiff were completed. He has not even made an attempt to explain the reason for coming out with these applications at a far too belated stage. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Court below has not properly exercised its discretion vested in it in dismissing the applications. On the admitted facts of this case, I am entirely in agreement with the finding of the Court below that these applications are filed by the petitioner in order to procrastinate the suit proceedings. For the abovementioned reasons, I do not find any merit in these Civil Revision Petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs.2,000/- in each case. As a sequel to dismissal of the Civil Revision Petitions, CRPMP.No.7686 of 2009 in CRP No.5617 of 2009 and CRPMP.No. 7690 of 2009 in CRP Nos.5617 are also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 21.01.2011 ES [1] AIR 2008 A.P. 163