THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4977 OF 2009 DATED:09-06- 2010. Between Tungala Venkata Panduranga Rao … Petitioner-defendant And Tungala Srinivasa Perumalu …Respondent-plaintiff THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4977 OF 2009 ORDER: This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order, dated 18-09-2009, in I.A.No.478 of 2009 in A.S.No.25 of 2008, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda, whereunder and whereby the application filed under Order XXVI Rule 10- A of CPC and Sections 45 and 47 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to send Exs.A1 and A2 along with the admitted signatures of the petitioner to the expert for comparison and opinion, was dismissed on the ground that the case of the petitioner would not fall under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein contended that the signatures on Exs.A1 and A2 are forged, that an issue has been framed to that effect, that the petitioner has made out a case for sending Exs.A1 and A2 along with his admitted signatures to the expert for comparison and opinion and hence, he prays to allow the revision. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent herein contended that in spite of giving several opportunities, the petitioner herein did not file any application to send Exs.A1 and A2 to the expert, that the case of the petitoner would not fall under any one of the clauses of Order XLI Rule 27 CPC and hence, he prays to dismiss the revision. 4. Production of additional evidence at appellate stage is not automatic unless the case of the petitioner falls under any one of the three clauses as mentioned under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC. A plea has been taken by the petitioner that he did not sign on Exs.A1 and A2. Therefore, he ought to have filed a petition in the trial Court to send Exs.A1 and A2 along with his admitted signatures to the expert for comparison and opinion. No such petition was filed in the trial Court when the suit was pending for over two years. As seen from the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it is clear that it does not contain any reason for not filing the application in the trial Court. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, the case of the petitioner does not fall under any one of the three clauses as mentioned under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC. The Court below after considering the material on record, rightly dismissed the application and absolutely, there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. -------------------- K.C.BHANU, J DATED:09-06- 2010 Note : Issue CC in 10 days Hsd