THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P. No. 4094 of 2007 Dated.24–06-2010 Between: Reddivari Raghunatha Reddy …Petitioner Vs. Reddivari Nagi Reddy (died) and others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P. No. 4094 of 2007 This is a plaintiff’s revision under Article 227 of the Constitution and is directed against the order dated 30-07- 2007 of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Rayachoty, rejecting I.A.No. 474 of 2007 in O.S.No. 10 of 2001. O.S.No. 10 of 2001 is for specific performance of an agreement of sale purportedly executed by the 1st defendant. Originally, the suit was filed against the 1st defendant alone. After the 1st defendant filed the written statement on 16-06-2001 denying execution of agreement of sale and specifically pleading that his signature on the suit agreement was forged, the plaintiff impleaded the other respondents. A suit was initially filed before the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoty in O.S.No. 380 of 2000. However, on the point of pecuniary jurisdiction, the plaint was returned and it was filed again before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Rayachoty, as O.S.No. 10 of 2001, wherein, as already stated, the 1st and principal defendant – the 1st respondent – had filed the written statement on 16-06-2001 clearly and categorically denying execution of suit agreement and claiming that his signature on the said document was forged. After conclusion ofevidence, the suit was listed for arguments. The plaintiff then filed I.A.No. 474 of 2004 on 09-07-2007 to send the original agreement of sale dated 02-04-1991 and endorsement dated 02-04-1993 to a hand-writing expert for comparison of the signatures of the 1st defendant with the admitted signatures affixed on a partition deed dated 04-02-1981 and a gift deed dated 02- 03-2000, executed in favour of defendant Nos. 2 to 4, by the 1st defendant. The Court below, by the impugned order, rejected the application on the ground that the application seeking sending of the suit agreement of sale to a handwriting expert for comparison of the disputed signatures of the 1st defendant thereon with the admitted signatures of the years 1981 and 2000 is irrational, as the admitted signatures cannot be considered as of a comparative or contemporaneous period with disputed signatures. This Court discerns no irrationality in the conclusion of the Court below. There is a further reason why the application ought to have been rejected. The 1st defendant filed the written statement on 16-06-2001 clearly and categorically denying execution of the suit agreement of sale and disputing his signature on the said instrument while specifically pleading that his signature thereon is a forged one. For nearly six years or more thereafter, the plaintiff/revision petitioner failed to take any steps for sending the suit agreement of sale to a handwriting expert for obtaining an expert opinion on the genuineness or otherwise of the 1st defendant’s signatures on the said instrument. Instead, the plaintiff filed I.A.No. 474 of 2004 on 09-07-2007 after an inordinate delay and after the entire evidence in the suit was concluded and the suit was listed for arguments. In any view of the matter, there are no merits. The revision petition is dismissed. The interim stay granted on 26-10- 2007 stands dissolved. No costs. __________________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM Dated: 24-06-2010 Pvks/*