HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:2663 OF 2009 ORDER: This is a revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to revise the order of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, in I.A.No.168 of 2009 in O.S.No.260 of 1994, dated 08.06.2009. Heard both sides. Perused the material available on record. The petitioner-plaintiff filed the above suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 19.12.1990 and endorsement thereon dated 17.8.1991 executed by late M.P. Apparao, husband of the 1st respondent and father of respondents 2 to 5, alleging that late Apparao delivered possession of the schedule property on 17.8.1991 and later he died intestate before registering the sale deed. The 1st defendant filed O.S.No.104 of 1995 seeking possession of the plaint schedule property, which was delivered by late Apparao to the petitioner herein. Both the suits were clubbed together and common evidence is being recorded. While so, the 1st defendant filed I.A.No.345 of 2006 in O.S.No.260 of 1994 seeking appointment of a handwriting expert for comparing the handwriting of M.P. Apparao in disputed and admitted documents and in that I.A., the petitioner filed a counter. On allowing the said I.A., the petitioner herein filed I.A.No.921 of 2007 seeking to review the order dated 1.11.2007 in I.A.No.345 of 2006. The Court below reviewed the order dated 1.11.2007 and ordered to send Exs.A7, B1 and B4 for comparison with the admitted writings and signatures of late Appa Rao in Ex.A1 and the other signatures in documents of X series. On receipt of the report, the said handwriting expert was also examined. The suit has been coming up for arguments. At that stage, the petitioner filed the present I.A. seeking to amend the counter filed in I.A.No.345 of 2006, which was already disposed of. Admittedly, the I.A.No.345 of 2006 was allowed by order dated 1.11.2007 and the said order was reviewed subsequently on the application filed by the petitioner herein and the reviewed order was also executed. Once the order passed in I.A.No.345 of 2006 was executed, there is no necessity to amend the counter therein. The approach of the petitioner is not bonafide one and it is nothing but to drag on the proceedings. In view of the same, I have no hesitation to hold that the Court below has rightly dismissed the I.A. and hence, the revision is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ Justice A. Gopal Reddy Date:29th April, 2011 Nn. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:2663 OF 2009 29.4.2011