THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.1326 of 2010 Dated 05th August, 2011 Between: Meka Lingaiah (died) rep.through LRs …Petitioners And Meka Linga Reddy and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Smt.K.Rajitha Counsel for respondents: --- The Court made the following: ORDER: This civil revision petition arises out of order, dated 01.02.2010, in I.A.No.39 of 2010 in O.S.No.112 of 2006, on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in the suit filed for partition of the suit schedule property. Along with the written statement, the respondents-defendants filed Ex.B14-document on 27.06.2008. The petitioners raised an objection against receiving the said document on the ground that the same is not registered. As the said objection was overruled, the petitioner earlier filed CRP against the said order. This Court while declining to interfere with the receiving of the document, however, reserved the right of the petitioners to raise objection regarding the correctness of the contents of the document at the time of hearing of the suit. After the evidence on the petitioners’ side was completed and during the course of evidence of the respondents, the document was marked as Ex.B14 on 28.08.2009. On 20.01.2010, the petitioners filed I.A.No.39 of 2010 for sending the said document for the opinion of handwriting expert by taking the plea that the same is forged and fabricated. This application is dismissed by the Court below on the ground that there is inordinate delay in filing the same. At the hearing, Smt.K.Rajitha, learned counsel for the petitioners, placed reliance on the judgement of a Division Bench of this Court in Janachaitanya Housing Ltd., Hyderabad v. Divya Financiers, Guntur[1] and submitted that mere delay cannot be the sole ground for rejecting the request for sending the document to handwriting expert under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. I have carefully considered the above submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners with reference to the judgment in Janachaitanya Housing Ltd., (supra). On the facts of this case, the petitioners failed to show that they have displayed due diligence in making a request for sending the disputed document for the opinion of the handwriting expert. As noted above, initially they have raised an objection as to the admissibility of the document. Thereafter, the document was marked on 28.08.2009. It is only after closure of the evidence and the arguments were commenced that the petitioners have come out with the present IA. Had the petitioners been diligent, they should have filed such an application immediately on the respondents filing document along with the written statement as far back as 27.06.2008. They have not filed such an application at least before the trial was commenced. In the face of these admitted facts, I do not find any error of jurisdiction on the part of the Court below in refusing to exercise the discretion vested in it. The civil revision petition is therefore dismissed, subject to the right of the petitioners to dispute the contents of the document in question. As a sequel to dismissal of the civil revision petition, C.R.P.M.P.No.1794 of 2010 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 05th August, 2011 VGB [1] 2008 (4) ALD 339 (DB)