THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.367 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioners filed O.S.No.748 of 2002 against the respondent, claiming certain relief. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. Thereupon, they filed A.S.No.88 of 2006 in the Court of IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa, and it is pending. The petitioners filed I.A.No.1064 of 2008 under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C., with a prayer to grant permission to adduce additional evidence in the appeal. The application was opposed by the respondent. The lower Appellate Court dismissed the I.A., through order dated 05-10-2009. Hence, this C.R.P. Heard Sri K.Raghunatha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners. There is considerable inconsistency between the prayer in the I.A.No.1064 of 2008, and the averments in the affidavit, filed in support thereof. While the prayer is the one, for according permission to adduce additional evidence, the averments are about sending Ex.B-1 for analysis by Forensic Science Laboratory. The averments fit into an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act (for short ‘the Act’), whereas the prayer in the I.A., is referable to Rule 27 of Order 41 C.P.C. Ignoring the inconsistency for a while, the plea of the petitioners cannot be accepted. The request was made to send Ex.B-1, dated 16- 02-1943 to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, on certain aspects, which do not, at all, fall into the scope of Section 45 of the Act. The lower Appellate Court examined the application from the correct perspective, and dismissed the I.A. This Court is not inclined to take a different view. The C.R.P. is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.08-02-2010. KO