THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1833 OF 2011 22.09.2011 Between: Challa Arava Raju And another. …Petitioners AND Pappu Narasimha Murthy …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1833 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioners are defendants in O.S.No.226 of 2007. The respondent filed a suit for refund of money paid towards advance under an agreement of sale dated 02.08.2005. The petitioners are contesting the suit inter alia on the ground that the said agreement is not true and correct. The petitioners earlier filed I.A.No.1290 of 2010 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 praying the trial Court to send the suit agreement to handwriting expert for examining the thumb impression. It appears the Court directed the first petitioner to give specimen thumb impression. On the day when the case was posted, it was not given. Therefore, I.A.No.1290 of 2010 was dismissed. Sometime thereafter, the petitioners again filed I.A.No.37 of 2011 praying the trial Court to send the agreement with the admitted thumb impression to a finger print expert. The trial Court dismissed the same with the following order. Perused the petition and counter averments and the docket order passed by the presiding officer of this Court in I.A.No.1290 of 2010 which is filed by this petition for same relief. On perusal of the docket order passed by my last predecessor officer dated 15.12.2010 was dismissed with an order that the petitioner is called absent. It is representing on behalf of petitioner that the petition may be dismissed and posted the suit for arguments. In view of the representation of petitioner the petition is dismissed as not pressed. So it is seen that the said petition is not dismissed for default. So the contention of the petitioner is false as contended that the counsel for respondent. Further having been not pressed the claim petition can rehesistate the matter for same relief as the matter is already posted for arguments and riped for disposal and it is of the year 2007. Hence, petition is dismissed as no merits. The counsel for petitioners submits that even if earlier application is dismissed, the same does not bar second application in the interest of justice. The Court below ought to have allowed the application filed by the petitioners to send the document to finger print expert. This Court has perused the document available on record. There is no denial that the petitioners’ application being I.A.No.1290 of 2010 was allowed earlier. Even though the Court specifically directed the petitioners to give thumb impressions, they did not give specimen thumb impression, from which an inference can be drawn that they are not serious about sending the suit agreement to an expert. The trial Court also drew an inference when an earlier application was not pressed, they cannot be permitted to file another application at the stage of arguments. The civil revision petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 22.09.2011 Pln