IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4064 of 2009 Petition under Section ____ of CPC., to revise/against the order dated ______ in NO : of 0 on the file of the court of the Between: K.Chandra Shekar, S/o. Siddamanaidu, R/o. 14 "C" type Quarters, K.T.Road, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Palukuri Ramakrishnama Naidu, S/o. Chinnabba Naidu, R/o. Plot No. 469, Krishna Kaumudi, Apartments, Vivekananda Nagar Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad-72. 2 Palukuri Sailaja, W/o. P.Ramakrishnama Naidu, R/o. Plot No. 469, Krishna Kaumudi, Apartments, Vivekananda Nagar Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad-72. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.JAGADISH CHANDRA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/CRP{GMS} THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4064 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is the defendant. The respondents are the plaintiffs who filed the suit in O.S.434/2007 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupathi, Chittoor District for recovery of possession based on the lease deed dated 23.09.2006. The said document is yet to be marked and proved. Even before the said document is marked and proved, the petitioner/defendant filed I.A.304/2009 under Sec.45 of the Indian Evidence Act for sending the alleged document to a handwriting expert for his opinion. The Court below dismissed the said application on the ground that the plaintiff has to prove the execution of the lease deed and therefore, the opinion of the handwriting expert cannot be the basis for adjudication of the matter. If the said document is not marked and proved, the question of sending the said document to a handwriting expert does not arose. Once the document is marked and proved, then the question of rebutting the signatures therein and sending the same to a handwriting expert will arise. In that view of the matter, I do not see any infirmity legal or other to interfere with the impugned order. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file an application afresh for the said relief after the plaintiff discharged his initial burden of proving and marking the document in question. No order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 09.10.2009 Dsr