IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4343 OF 2009 Between: Allugunti Rami Reddy ..... PETITIONER AND Godduvelagala Chandra Sekhar .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent: The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4343 of 2009 O R D E R : The revision petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.263 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadiri. The said suit was filed by the respondent herein for recovery of amounts allegedly due from the defendant/revision petitioner under a promissory note. The defendant filed a written statement disputing his signatures on the suit promissory note dated 10.03.2004. Thereafter, he filed I.A.No.1055 of 2007 to send the suit promissory note to a handwriting expert for comparison of his admitted signatures with the signatures found on the suit promissory note. The said application was allowed by the Court below. However, the defendant failed to take further steps, but on the other hand he filed a fresh application i.e., I.A.No.1513 of 2008 with a prayer to send for the plaints in O.S.No.271 of 2004, O.S.No.23 of 2002, E.P.No.129 of 2003 in O.S.No.301 of 2001 and E.P.No.157 of 2003 in O.S.No.446 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadiri for comparison of his signatures on the pleadings with the disputed signatures on the suit promissory note. The said application was dismissed by the Court below and aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having gone through the material available on record, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the order under revision. As could be seen from the material available on record, in spite of the order passed in I.A.No.1055 of 2007 the petitioner did not take any steps for sending the disputed document for expert opinion and no reason is forthcoming for his failure to do so. It is also relevant to note that the plaintiff in O.S.No.263 of 2007 (respondent herein) is not a party to any of the suits and E.Ps mentioned in the present application. In the circumstances, the Court below has rightly dismissed I.A.No.1513 of 2008 and the said discretion exercised by the Court below, cannot be said to be erroneous on any ground whatsoever. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Date: 04.03.2010 Ivd