HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P. No.1050 OF 2010 DATE:19-03-2010 BETWEEN: Ayaluri Subrahmanyam …Petitioner AND Smt.Ayaluri Satyavathi & others. …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P. No.1050 OF 2010 ORDER: Plaintiff No.1 is in revision against the orders of II Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Amalapuram, dated 20.11.2009 dismissing I.A.No.1026 of 2009 in O.S.No.24 of 2004 filed under Order XVI Rules 1 and 5 r/w Section 151 C.P.C. to summon V.S.R.A. Prasad-document writer for examination. The revision petitioner along with others instituted the above suit for declaration of vested remainder rights and recovery of possession of plaint schedule property basing on a will, dated 10.4.1995 and codicil, dated 15.6.1997 said to be executed by late Ayluri Subrahmanyam. While contesting the suit, as the defendants-respondents 1 to 8 herein denied the truth of codicil, dated 15.6.1997 executed by Subrahmanyam, the said document was sent for expert opinion. Smt.D.Varalakshmi, Assistant Director of A.P. Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad gave her opinion on 28.3.2008 against the plaintiffs and therefore, the plaintiffs filed the impugned application to summon the scribe of Ex.A.1-V.S.R.A.Prasad for giving evidence contending that due to oversight and confusion, they could not take summons to summon the scribe of Ex.A.1 for giving evidence. Contesting the impugned I.A., the defendants filed a counter stating that the application was filed only to drag on the proceedings. Earlier, after hearing the arguments of the defendants, the plaintiffs filed petitions on 20.4.2009 to reopen the trial of the suit and to summon the handwriting expert for giving evidence as witness or in the alternative, to appoint Commissioner for recording the evidence of the handwriting expert and that the said petitions were dismissed on the ground that they lack bona fides. It was their case that when they denied the truth and validity of Ex.A.1 codicil, dated 15.6.1997, on which the plaintiffs relied on, the said document was sent to expert for his opinion at the instance of the defendants and the expert gave the opinion against the plaintiffs and in favour of the first respondent-first defendant, and therefore, according to the defendants, the plea of the plaintiffs that by oversight they failed to take summons to the scribe of Ex.A.1 cannot be accepted that too at the stage when the trial of the suit was closed and it was posted for arguments. By the impugned order, the lower Court dismissed the application holding that it was filed only to protract the litigation. From the record, it is to be seen that when the matter was posted for judgment on 30.4.2009, the plaintiffs filed impugned I.A. along with I.A.No.1029 of 2009 to reopen the matter. Earlier to filing of those petitions, the plaintiffs filed I.A.Sr.No.2622 of 2009 to reopen the matter and I.A.Sr.No.2623 of 2009 to summon handwriting expert-Smt.D.Varalakshmi, which were dismissed by the lower Court on 20.4.2009. On dismissal of the same, the plaintiffs resorted to file the impugned application, and therefore, as rightly observed by the lower Court, the plaintiffs filed the impugned application only to drag on the matter. The discretion exercised by the lower Court in dismissing the impugned application does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court. The revision fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. MARCH 19, 2010 Tsr.