HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.Nos.5332, 5333 & 5334 of 2009 DATE:02-12-2011 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5332 OF 2009 BETWEEN K.Manohar …Petitioner AND K.Bapana Swamy …Respondent CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5333 OF 2009 BETWEEN K.Manohar …Petitioner AND K.Bapana Swamy …Respondent CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5334 OF 2009 BETWEEN K.Manohar …Petitioner AND K.Bapana Swamy …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.Nos.5332, 5333 & 5334 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: These three revisions are arising out of the same proceedings and therefore, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common order. Defendant-petitioner herein having set ex parte in the proceedings before the Court below ﬁled I.A.No.847 of 2009 seeking to set aside the ex parte orders and permit him to examine himself as D.W.1. The said petition was allowed and he was examined as D.W.1 and thereafter three adjournments were given to him for adducing further evidence on his side, but as he has not let in any further evidence nor ﬁled aﬃdavit in lieu of chief-examination, his evidence was closed. Therefore, he ﬁled applications i.e. I.A.No.1059 of 2009 to reopen evidence on his side and permit him to adduce his evidence; I.A.No.1058 of 2009 to recall D.W.1 for the purpose of adducing his evidence; and I.A.No.988 of 2009 to send the suit promissory note to handwriting expert for the purpose of comparison of disputed signatures thereon with his admitted signatures and to ascertain the age of the revenue stamp and signature of witness thereon. By order dated 12.10.2009 I.A.Nos.1058 and 1059 of 2009 were dismissed by the lower Court, against which, C.R.P.Nos.5332 and 5333 of 2009, respectively, are filed. Similarly, on dismissal of I.A.No.988 of 2009 on 21.10.2009, C.R.P.No.5334 of 2009 is filed. Admittedly, no reasons are assigned by the petitioner herein for reopening the matter and the purpose for which, he wanted to re-examine as D.W.1. He simply stated that he was suﬀering with viral fever and was unable to attend the Court for ﬁling aﬃdavit-in-chief and his absence is neither willful nor wanton. The plea taken the aﬃdavit appears to be the very same plea that was already taken in I.A.No.847 of 2009, which was, in fact, allowed on 12.8.2009. By virtue of orders passed therein, he was examined and further time was granted for leading further evidence, but he remained absent on three occasions, which led to closure of his side evidence. Therefore, from the conduct of the petitioner it appears, both the applications i.e. I.A.Nos.1058 and 1059 of 2009 are ﬁled only to protract the litigation. Similarly, in the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of I.A.No.988 of 2009, wherein he sought for sending the suit pronote to the handwriting expert for comparison of signatures thereon with his admitted signatures, he stated that the plaintiﬀ is a stranger to him and he never saw the plaintiﬀ or the attestor or the scribe of the pronote, which is a rank forgery and was pressed into service for the purpose of ﬁling the suit. Though he sent a notice for furnishing a copy of the pronote, the plaintiﬀ has not sent the copy to him. But nowhere he stated that contemporary signatures are available for comparison of signatures in the suit pronote. Admittedly, P.W.2, the attestor of suit pronote was cross-examined by the petitioner, wherein he stated that he had no occasion to see the defendant (petitioner herein) prior to the pronote transaction and that consideration was passed on in his presence. Thus he was cross-examined only on the aspect of non-passing of consideration but was not cross-examined on the aspect that the petitioner has not put his signature on the pronote, which was attested by P.W.2. Whereas in the aﬃdavit ﬁled by the petitioner in lieu of chief-examination he stated that passing of consideration to him either by cash or by cheque was not mentioned in the suit pronote-Ex.A.1 and that the plaintiﬀ has not ﬁled statement of account to substantiate his plea and the pronote is a fabricated one. Thus the entire evidence adduced by the petitioner is on the aspect of non-passing of consideration. But the impugned I.A.No.988 of 2009 is ﬁled at this stage to send the pronote for the purpose of comparison of signature thereon alleging that it is a rank forged document. Therefore, the impugned I.A.No.988 of 2009 is ﬁled only to protract the litigation. No inﬁrmity is discernable with the impugned orders warranting interference by this Court. All the revisions are accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. DECEMBER 02, 2011 Tsr.