THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5624 OF 2011 Dated: 27.12.2011 Between : Smt. L.Premalatha Thakarey … Petitioner And P.Krishna Reddy and another … Respondents The Court made the following:- THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5624 of 2011 ORDER : The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.56/2007 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad, Rangareddy District. The suit is filed against the respondents herein for specific performance of an Agreement of Sale, dated 5.10.1996 in respect of the suit schedule property. The defendants contested the suit claim denying the execution of the agreement dated 5.10.1996. The signatures of the defendant No.1 on both Ex.A-1 suit agreement and Ex.A-2 receipt of sale consideration were denied. While the trial was in progress, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.750 of 2011 under Section 45 of the Evidence Act to send Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2 documents to an expert for comparison with the signatures of the defendant No.1 on the vakalat and the written statement along with his specimen signatures obtained in the open Court. The said application was dismissed by the Court below by order dated 3.11.2011. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed by the plaintiff. I have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and perused the material available on record. It is to be noticed that the revision petitioner/plaintiff herself pleaded in her affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.750 of 2011 that the 1st defendant, to avoid the liability under the suit agreement, had put his signatures on the vakalat, written statement and also on the depositions in a different way. Therefore, the Court below opined that no useful purpose would be served by sending Exs.A-1 and Ex.A-2 documents for comparison with the signatures of the 1st defendant on the vakalat, written statement and etc. It was also observed by the Court below that though the written statement was filed long back on 19.2.2008 denying the execution of the agreement and also the receipt of sale consideration, the plaintiff failed to take any steps for sending the disputed documents for expert opinion. As rightly observed by the Court below, as per Rule 101 of Civil Rules of Practice, the party has to apply for any such direction at the first hearing. Admittedly the application has been filed at the fag end of the suit proceedings and no justifiable reason is forthcoming for the failure on the part of the plaintiff to take the necessary steps for expert opinion soon after the written statement was filed. Hence the Court below cannot be said to have committed any error in dismissing the application. The ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in JANACHAITANYA HOUSING LIMITED v. DIVYA FINANCIERS (2008 (3) ALT 409) has no application to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 27.12.2011 Ivd