IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICIATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH, AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE 09th DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.3197 OF 2010 Between:- A.Gopiratnam …Petitioner A n d Gayatri Chit Funds, Pippara, A regd.firm Rep. by its Managing Partner And Foreman Vuppala Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.3197 OF 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 03-05-2010 in I.A.No.522 of 2010 in O.S.No.214 of 2004, on the file of the II-Additional Junior Civil Judge. Tadepalligudem, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein D-7 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send Ex.A-7 to handwriting expert for comparison and opinion, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. The first respondent herein filed the suit for recovery of amount due in a sum of Rs.15,752/-. D-1 to D-5 are the legal heirs of the deceased K.Nageswara Rao. D-8 is the legal heir of D-6 S.Gopalam, who died during the pendency of the suit. According to the plaintiff, the deceased K.Nageswara Rao and S.Gopalam have deposited their title deeds in connection with the suit loan transaction. Their legal heirs D-1 to D-5 and D-8 remained ex parte in the suit. The petitioner herein D-7, who claims to have purchased the plaint schedule property from D-6 S.Gopalam, alone contested the suit by filing a written statement. In the said written statement, he never raised the plea that Ex.A-7 the deed of deposit of title deeds is a forged document. On the other hand, he only pleaded that he had no knowledge about the same. He is not a party or signatory to the said document. The executants are no more and their legal heirs are not disputing the genuineness of the said document. When that is so, about six years after filing of the suit and written statement, the petitioner-D-7 came forward with an application in I.A.No.522 of 2010 seeking an expert opinion regarding the genuineness of the said document, raising for the first time the plea that the said document is forged. The learned II-Additional Junior Civil Judge has rightly dismissed the said application by a reasoned order. It is obvious that the petitioner-D-7 has come forward with the present application only with a view to protract the further proceedings in the suit, wherein trial is in progress. The impugned order, dismissing the said application, does not, therefore, call for any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, as the same does not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity. There are absolutely no merits in the civil revision petition. 4. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 09th February, 2011 Lrkm.