IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2261 of 2011 Between: G.M. Shanth Veeranna … Petitioner And Bharath Kumar V. Shah … Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Sri T.S. Anand Counsel for the respondent: Sri M.V.K. Sitaram This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2261 of 2011 ORDER: 1) This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order and decree, dated 30.04.2011, in I.A.No.1268 of 2010 in O.S.No.14 of 2004 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Adoni, whereunder and whereby the petition filed to send Exs.B-25, B-27 and B-28 to handwriting expert for the purpose of comparison of the writings of PW.1 was dismissed as infructuous on the ground that I.A.No.1267 of 2010 filed to reopen the suit was dismissed. 2) It seems that the account extracts, which were marked as Exs.B- 25, B-27 and B-28, said to have confronted with the respondent/plaintiff. Therefore, the petitioner/defendant filed I.A.No.1268 of 2010 to send these documents to handwriting expert for the purpose of comparison of the writings of PW.1. Insofar as Ex.B-25 is concerned, it is an old document and no contemporaneous documents are available for the purpose of comparison of the signature of the plaintiff with that of the signature available on Ex.B- 25. Insofar as Exs.B-27 and B-28 are concerned, they are only the Photostat copies and therefore, the question of comparison of the signature of the plaintiff with that of the signature available on Exs.B- 27 and B-28 does not arise. A perusal of the order in I.A.No.1267 of 2010 filed to reopen the suit would show that the abovementioned reasons given by the trial Court for dismissing the interlocutory application need no interference by this Court and the trial Court has rightly dismissed the I.A. filed under Order XXVI Rule 10(A) CPC to send the abovementioned documents for handwriting expert and there is no illegality in dismissing the same. 3) The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J Date: 12.09.2011 ES