THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:2145 of 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 15.04.2011, in I.A.No.368 of 2011 in O.P.No.195 of 1999 on the file of the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, wherein the said application filed by the 1st respondent herein-plaintiff under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send Ex.A1 to an expert for comparison and opinion regarding signature of the 2nd defendant, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the records. 3. 1st respondent herein filed the suit for specific performance of suit agreement of sale against the petitioners-defendants 1 and 2 and 3rd respondent-3rd defendant. Defendants are contesting the suit. It is stated that recording of evidence on both sides is completed and the matter reached the stage of arguments. At that stage, 1st respondent herein filed I.A.No.368 of 2011 requesting the Court to send the suit agreement-Ex.A1 to the hand writing expert for comparison and opinion regarding the signatures of the 2nd defendant. As the 2nd defendant denied the execution of Ex.A1 and signature thereon, the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge by a brief and cryptic order dismissed the application observing thus: “After careful consideration I came to conclusion that by examination of P.W.1 and 2 and marked Ex.A1 document, execution of the document is proved, so that there is no need to send the document Ex.A1 to expert”. 4. 1st respondent herein-plaintiff has not filed any revision, questioning the dismissal of the application filed by him. Petitioners-defendants 1 and 2 however filed the present revision aggrieved by the observation contained in the impugned order, wherein it is stated that after careful consideration, the Court came to the conclusion that by examination of P.Ws.1 and 2 and marking Ex.A1, the execution of document is proved. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner when the suit is still pending and at the stage of arguments and even before arguments are advanced, the above observation, if allowed to remain on record would amount to pre-judging the issue leading to unnecessary and avoidable apprehension in the minds of the affected parties. The above observation is certainly unwarranted at this stage when the arguments of the matter are yet to be heard and such an observation would certainly give an impression of pre-judging the issue, which is impermissible and is also not in consonance with the concept of a fair trial. The said observation contained in the impugned order cannot therefore be allowed to remain on record and the same is accordingly set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-1st plaintiff would contend that the interest of the plaintiff may be safeguarded. 6. It is to be noted that the application filed by the 1st respondent-plaintiff has been dismissed and the same is not challenged. It is however open to the 1st respondent to seek the other remedies available under law. 7. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. ______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY,J 18th October, 2011. Tsy