THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3219 of 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.128 of 2003 on the file of the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal. Petitioners are the plaintiffs in the aforesaid suit filed for specific performance of an agreement of sale alleged to have been executed by respondents 1 to 4 on 07.03.1998 agreeing to sell the suit schedule land admeasuring Acs.3.14 guntas @ Rs.62,000/- per acre. In the said suit, written statement was filed by respondents 1 to 4 on 07.06.2003. Even according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the issues were framed on 22.03.2006. Though respondents 1 to 4 have taken a stand in the written statement filed by them as early as on 07.06.2003 that the alleged agreement of sale is fabricated and is not executed by them, the petitioners filed I.A.No.471 of 2011 seeking to send Exs.A.1 to A.21, agreement of sale and other receipts, to the hand-writing expert for comparing with the signatures under Exs.B.27 and B.28. There upon, the Court below by order, dated 15.07.2011 dismissed the said application mainly on the ground that it was filed at belated stage. In this Civil Revision Petition, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that though there is some delay, even at any stage, such application can be moved in view of denial of the allegations. In support of his case, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the orders passed by this Court in GURU GOVINDU v. DEVARAPU VENKATARAMANA[1] a n d KOLLI RANGA RAO AND ANOTHER v. KOLLI VARALAKSHMI JANANI[2]. It is to be noted that delay and latches are the matters to be considered with reference to the facts of each case and that whether delay is minimal side or abnormal is a matter depends on the facts of each case. In this case, it is to be noticed that in the written statement filed on 07.06.2003 itself, respondents 1 to 4 denied the execution of alleged agreement of sale. In that view of the matter, as the suit is of 2003, though it is pending for the past more than seven years, there is no reason for the petitioners to come up with such application at the eleventh hour. In view of unexplained abnormal delay and latches on the part of the petitioners, the orders passed by this Court in the cases of GURU GOVINDU and KOLLI RANGA RAO (1 and 2 supra), relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners, would not render any support. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this Civil Revision Petition to interfere with the impugned order. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, it is made clear that with regard to the disputed signatures, it is for the Court below to examine and take decision while deciding the matter finally. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 12th DECEMBER, 2011. kvni [1] 2006(4) ALD 333 [2] 2011(3) ALD 547