THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6153 of 2010 ORDER: Heard both sides. This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the defendants in O.S.No.156 of 2006 on the file of the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore. The respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.No.156 of 2006 for specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 20.09.1993, which was marked as Ex.A.1. In the written statement itself, it appears, the petitioners have taken the stand that Ex.A.1 is forged and fabricated. In spite of such plea, the petitioners have not taken steps from 2006 onwards and after completion of evidence on both sides, at last, the petitioners filed I.A.No.417 of 2010 under Sections 45 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to send Ex.A.1 to the expert for opinion. The Court below has rejected the same by the impugned order. In this Civil Revision Petition, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that no valid reasons have been recorded by the Court below for rejecting I.A.No.417 of 2010. It is also contended that Ex.A.1 is forged and unless there is an opinion from the expert, it is not possible to prove the case of the petitioners. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff that though the suit is of 2006, at no point of time, steps were taken by the petitioners/defendants for sending the document to the expert for opinion and that the petitioners also examined D.Ws.1 to 4 and only to protract the litigation, I.A.No.417 of 2010 was filed. It is to be noticed that Ex.A.1 is of 1993 and the Court below by recording a finding that the application was filed to drag on the proceedings and there are no signatures of the petitioners contemporaneous to the signatures on Ex.A.1, rejected I.A.No.417 of 2010. If the petitioners have taken the stand in the written statement filed in 2006 that Ex.A.1 is fabricated, there appears no reason at all for waiting up to 2010 for not taking steps to send Ex.A.1 to the expert for opinion. Further, as rightly recorded by the Court below, there are no signatures contemporaneous to the signatures on Ex.A.1 and in view of unexplained delay on the part of the petitioners/defendants, I do not find any illegality, which warrants interference in the impugned order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 6th JUNE, 2011. kvni