HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1071 OF 2010 DATE:28-04-2010 BETWEEN Leela Atchutha Rao (died) per L.Rs. …Petitioner AND Karri Sathi Reddy …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1071 OF 2010 ORDER: This revision under Article 227 of Constitution of India by the respondents in A.S.No.253 of 2005 on the file of VI Additional district Judge (Fast Track Court), East Godavari District at Rajahmundry is directed to revise the orders passed in I.A.No.232 of 2009, dated 8.10.2009. Against the judgment, dated 9.09.2005 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry in O.S.No.279 of 2000 dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent herein for specific performance of oral agreement of sale, dated 28.5.2000 entered into by the first defendant on behalf of second defendant to sell the plaint schedule property for Rs.2.00 lakhs or in the alternative for return of the advance amount of Rs.1.00 lakh with interest at 24% per annum, the plaintiff preferred A.S.No.253 of 2005. Pending the appeal, the plaintiff-respondent herein filed the impugned I.A. for sending Exs.B.1 and B.2 for expert opinion for comparison with his admitted signature by stating Exs.B.1 and B.2 are forged documents. Ex.B.1 is the promissory note, dated 23.12.1998 for Rs.60,000/- executed by first defendant in favour of plaintiff and Ex.B.2 is the discharge endorsement said tobe signed by the plaintiff on Ex.B.1. The lower appellate Court by the impugned order, allowed the I.A. holding that the documents Exs.B.1 and B.2 are crucial documents to arrive at a just conclusion since the suit itself was filed for specific performance of contract. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners-defendants contends that when the trial Court already dismissed the suit holding that the signatures on Ex.B.1 are not that of the first defendant, sending the documents-Exs.B.1 and B.2 at the appellate stage for expert opinion does not arise. In support of the same, reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in Perugu Rama Rao and another v. Palagani Ratnakumari(2008 (1) ALD 531). In the said case, this Court held that though the defendants disputed their signatures on suit agreements of sale and when the plaintiffs did not feel necessity to file petition seeking expert opinion, the plaintiffs cannot come forward with such a petition at the stage of appeal when the significant years have been lapsed. It was also held that the parameters that apply to an application under Rule 27 of Order 41 C.P.C. i.e. for adducing additional evidence at the stage of appeal; apply to the petitions, filed under Section 45 of the Evidence Act also, if they are presented during the pendency of an appeal. In the entire affidavit filed in support of the impugned I.A. it is not stated as to why the defendants could not take such steps in the trial Court and no sufficient cause was shown that prevented the defendants from taking such steps. The defendants-petitioners herein having invited judgment from the trial Court without taking any such steps, cannot fill up the lacunae in the evidence at the appellate stage. Further, only after comparison of the admitted signatures of the plaintiff i.e. P.W.1 with that of the signatures on Exs.B.1 and B.2, the trial Court dismissed the suit. When the defendants pleaded that the signatures on Exs.B.1 and B.2 are forged, they ought to have taken such steps to send those documents at the initial stage. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. APRIL 28, 2010 Tsr.