HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P. No.4131 OF 2009 DATED: 11-09-2009 BETWEEN: Pemmanaboyina Adi Laxmi …Petitioner AND Saladi Srinivasa Rao …Respondent This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P. No.4131 OF 2009 ORDER: Petitioner-defendant filed this revision assailing the correctness of the orders of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, dated 8.7.2009 made in I.A.No.688 of 2009 in O.S.No.83 of 2007 whereby the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 45 of the Evidence Act to send the documents-Exs.A.1 and A.2 to handwriting expert with a direction to compare the disputed signatures and thumb impressions appeared on those documents with the admitted signatures and specimen signatures of the petitioner that can be taken in the open Court. It is not in dispute that earlier to the present application, I.A.No.1556 of 2007 was filed by the petitioner to send the suit promissory note to the handwriting expert for his opinion, and that the handwriting expert gave his opinion stating that unless the document containing the Telugu admitted signatures of petitioner-defendant of the year 2004, opinion could not be given. Then, both the parties agreed to send the documents to the handwriting expert for comparison with regard to thumb marks of the petitioner contained therein and accordingly, the handwriting expert gave his opinion on 22.4.2009 opining that the so-called disputed thumb marks of the petitioner on Exs.A.1 and A.2 are one and the same. Therefore, the petitioner having invited the opinion of the expert again filing the similar application for sending the documents for comparison of the signatures with the admitted signatures to be obtained in the Court does not arise. The present application appears to have been filed only to protract the litigation, which cannot be entertained. No infirmity is discernable with the discretion exercised by the lower Court in dismissing the impugned application. The revision fails and is accordingly dismissed at the threshold. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. SEPTEMBER 11, 2009 Tsr.