HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P. No.275 OF 2010 DATE:05-03-2010 BETWEEN: Dunna Venkata Rao & Another …Petitioners AND Velugula Nageswara Rao & others. …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P. No.275 OF 2010 ORDER: Plaintiffs in O.S.No.691 of 2004 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada are in revision against the orders, dated 8.10.2009 dismissing I.A.No.521 of 2009 filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send the receipt-Ex.A.2, dated 19.12.2001 to the handwriting expert for comparison with the admitted signatures of D.W.1. The petitioners herein instituted the above suit for specific performance of agreement of sale or in the alternative, for refund of the advance amount paid along with interest. According to the plaintiffs-petitioners herein, the first defendant-first respondent herein entered into an oral agreement with them for sale of the suit schedule property for a consideration of Rs.4.00 lakhs and received Rs.50,000/- on 19.12.2001 towards the balance of sale consideration and executed Ex.A.2 receipt, in which, he also admitted the receipt of Rs.3.50 lakhs earlier. But, however, as the first defendant-first respondent is denying the execution of Ex.A.2 claiming that the signature thereon is not of his signature, the impugned application came to be filed for comparison of signature on Ex.A.2 along with the admitted signatures of first defendant-first respondent (D.W.1) by handwriting expert. Contesting the impugned I.A., the defendants-respondents herein filed a counter denying the averments made therein. It was their case that though the suit was instituted in 2004, no such steps were taken for the last five years. A criminal case was already filed on the very same set of allegations against the respondents 1, 8 and two others alleging that the 8th respondent along with a lady and a boy impersonated the first respondent and cheated the plaintiffs-petitioners herein, and therefore, no purpose would be served by sending Ex.A.2 to the handwriting expert, particularly when there are no admitted contemporous signatures of first respondent. The lower Court by the impugned order dismissed the I.A. holding that when the plaintiffs wanted to send Ex.A.2-receipt to handwriting expert along with the admitted signatures of D.W.1 signed on vakalat and depositions, they ought to have taken such steps at the earliest stage, but kept quiet for so many years and therefore, there is no justifiable ground to accept the claim of the plaintiffs and that there are no bona fides in filing the impugned I.A. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material available on record. P.W.4, the alleged scribe of Ex.A.2 filed an affidavit in lieu of chief-examination on behalf of plaintiffs to the effect that in his presence, plaintiffs paid Rs.3.50 lakhs and also Rs.50,000/- to the first defendant. In the cross-examination by the defendants, he admitted that P.W.2 is his childhood friend; P.W.3 is the father-in- law of P.W.2; he gave evidence in C.C.No.481 of 2004 against first defendant; he does not know the meaning of Ex.A.1 mentioned in his chief-affidavit; he was not present when the property was settled to sell for Rs.4.00 lakhs and out of which, Rs.3.50 lakhs was paid to first defendant and his mother as stated in the chief- affidavit. He also admitted that he did not remember whether he stated to the advocate at the time of drafting chief-affidavit that the property was settled for Rs.4.00 lakhs out of which, Rs.3.50 lakhs was paid to first defendant and his mother. He further admitted that he did not state in C.C.No.481 of 2004 that at about 5.00 p.m. while he was present at the shop of P.W.1, one Nageswararao came to the shop of P.W.1 and P.W.1 gave Rs.50,000/- as loan to V.Nageswararao for which, he (P.W.4) prepared a receipt at the request of P.W.1, as in Ex.B.5. Keeping in view of the above said evidence, it is clear that the impugned application is filed by the petitioners only to fill up lacuna which they failed to establish through P.W.4. In view of the same, the impugned order so passed by the lower Court dismissing the I.A. does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality to be corrected by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India. The revision fails and the same is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. MARCH 12, 2010 Tsr.