IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4753 OF 2009 Between: Kovvuri Subba Reddy, S/o.K.Veera Reddy .... PETITIONER AND J. Venkateswaralu, S/o.J.Lokappa ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4753 OF 2009 ORDER: This Court ordered notice before admission on 12.10.2009 and granted interim stay for a limited period. 2. Sri A.V. Sivaiah, the learned counsel entered appearance on behalf of respondent. 3. Heard Sri K. Sitaram, learned counsel representing the petitioner and Sri A.V. Sivaiah, learned counsel representing the respondent. 4 . The civil revision petition is filed as against the order dated 01.08.2009 made in I.A.No.493 of 2009 in O.S.No.53 of 2005 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Adoni. 5. The said application was filed under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code to send the document i.e., Ex.A-1 to the expert for examination and opinion regarding the alteration and link used for alteration of 2001 as 2002. 6. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Adoni, after formulating the point for consideration at paragraph No.4 recorded reasons at paragraph Nos.6, 7 and 8 and ultimately came to the conclusion that the application is devoid of merits and accordingly dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the same the present civil revision petition had been preferred. 7. The learned Judge infact had referred to Velaga Sivarama Krishna v. Velaga Veerabhadra Rao and another (2009 (1) ALT 379) and recorded certain further reasons. The learned Judge also observed at paragraph No.8 as hereunder: “In the case on hand, the suit is based on pronote and suit is filed in the year 2005 and the matter is taken up for trial by examining P.Ws.1 to 3. At this stage, the present petition is filed for sending the document to the expert, which is highly belated and the matter being money matter, it will lead to procrastinate the matter. All these options should have been exercised by the petitioner/defendant before the commencement of the trial and not when the matter is part-heard, which will further delay the matter. Thus, the petition lacks merits and deserves dismissal.” 8. In the light of the reasons specified supra recorded by the learned Judge at paragraph No.8, this Court is of the considered opinion that this civil revision petition is devoid of merits. 9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ P.S. NARAYANA, J November 27, 2009 MD