IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4429 of 2010 Between: Shaik Ubedulla ..... Petitioner AND P.G. Sivasankara Reddy .....Respondent Counsel for the petitioner : Sri K. Jagan Mohan Reddy The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4429 of 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition arises out of order dated 14.06.2010 in I.A.No.113 of 2009 in O.S.No.41 of 2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur, Kurnool District. The petitioner is the defendant in the abovementioned suit filed by the respondent for recovery of the suit amount on the basis of two promissory notes. In the written statement filed by the petitioner, he has alleged that the promissory notes were forged. After the evidence of the plaintiff was started, the petitioner has filed I.A.No.113 of 2009 for sending the suit promissory notes to the General Manager, Indian Security Press, Nasik, Maharastra, for obtaining the opinion and report as to whether the revenue stamps affixed on them were printed and released in Andhra Pradesh. The said application has been dismissed by the lower Court. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision is filed. At the hearing, Sri K. Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Court below has committed a serious error in rejecting the application. In its order, the lower Court has observed that though the petitioner has taken the stand in his written statement that the suit promissory notes were forged, he has not raised any averment regarding the stamps affixed on them. In my opinion, the petitioner not having raised any plea regarding the stamps affixed on the suit promissory notes in the written statement, he is not entitled to file I.A.No.113 of 2009 for the opinion of an expert. Therefore, I do not find any error in the order of the lower Court in dismissing the said I.A. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the revision petition, CRPMP.No.5902 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 01.10.2010 ES