THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.901 of 2011 Dated:24.06.2011 Between: P.Chandrakala. …Petitioner and Eerthineni Dhanalakshmi. …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.901 of 2011 ORDER: This civil revision petition is by the plaintiff. She instituted O.S.No.465 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupathi, for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 29.07.2004 allegedly executed by the respondent in respect of the suit schedule property. She disputes the document and alleges that it is a forged one. The defendant filed memo to send the disputed signatures to handwriting expert. The same was granted. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed C.R.P.No.132 of 2009. The same was allowed leaving the parties to move proper application. The respondent then filed I.A.No.744 of 2010 praying the Court to send the disputed signatures on the suit agreement to handwriting expert. The same was also granted, which was, however, set aside by this Court in C.R.P.No.4361 of 2010, dated 18.11.2010 on the ground that it is bereft of reasons. Thereafter, the Court below passed a reasoned order allowing the Interlocutory Application filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and directed to send the disputed document, namely, agreement of sale, dated 29.07.2004, to handwriting expert along with the admitted signatures. This is the subject matter of this civil revision petition. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that unless and until the contemporaneous signatures are available, the disputed signatures cannot be compared by the handwriting expert. He points out that the agreement of sale is dated 29.07.2004, whereas the respondent sought to compare the same with her signatures as a surety in the documents executed with Andhra Bank, Chittoor, in 2001. Therefore, according to him, the impugned order is vitiated by error. It is brought to the notice of this Court that even while C.R.P.No.132 of 2009 filed against the order in I.A.No.1402 of 2006, was pending before this Court, the handwriting expert gave the opinion holding that the signatures on the suit agreement had not been written by the respondent. Presumably for this reason, the petitioner is filing one civil revision petition or the other to prevent the Court from proceeding with the suit. Further, this Court set aside the earlier two orders of the Court below directing to send the suit agreement to the handwriting expert. The issue was open before the trial Court. The trial Court has now considered the issue having regard to the submission of the respondent that her signatures in 2001 document are available for comparison, and allowed the application. The trial Court gave cogent and convincing reasons, and the order cannot be said to be suffering from any grave error apparent on the face of the record. The Civil Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 24.06.2011 vs