IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.2133 of 2008 Between: D.Vanachandra Reddy …Petitioner A n d D.Bhaskar Reddy (died) D.Reddappa Reddy and others ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.2133 of 2008 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 07.09.2007 in I.A.No.452 of 2007 in O.S.No.89 of 1996, on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein, the plaintiff, under Section 151 CPC to send the documents viz., Ex.A-1 sale deed executed by D-1 in favour of D-2 and the reply notice issued by D-1 with necessary clarification to FSL, Hyderabad for comparison of the signatures, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein filed the suit O.S.No.89 of 1996 against the respondents. Earlier, the petitioner filed I.A.No.136 of 2001 for sending the suit document to the expert for comparison and opinion and the same was allowed on 10.04.2001. Accordingly, the document was sent to the FSL, Hyderabad. A letter was received from the FSL stating that the disputed document which is an agreement dated 09.09.1993 containing the signatures was already examined by the FSL and opinion was issued on 21.11.2000. The FSL addressed several letters seeking clarification as to which of the documents needs to be examined. As there was no response, the documents were returned by the FSL. Subsequently, the trial of the suit also proceeded with. The matter underwent several adjournments seeking clarification from the parties, but the same was not forthcoming. As the disputed document was already examined by the expert and opinion was also furnished by them, the trial Court felt that there was no need to send the document again for comparison. As seen from the impugned order, the entire evidence was completed on behalf of the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 and the matter was coming up for evidence of third defendant. At that stage, the plaintiff again filed the present application. In spite of granting several opportunities, the plaintiff has not furnished the clarification required by the FSL. As rightly observed by the trial Court, the plaintiff is not justified in seeking to send the document once again to the expert at this stage. As there was no interim stay granted in the civil revision petition and the suit being of the year 1996 and the trial has reached fag end in the year 2004, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the suit itself might have been disposed of by now. Be that as it may, there are absolutely no merits in the civil revision petition and the impugned order is held not liable to be set aside. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously, if not already disposed of. 4. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 27th June, 2011 Lrkm.