THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS.3012 AND 3013 OF 2009 DATED:11-06- 2010. Between Smt. Munni @ Jameela Begum … Petitioner-plaintiff And Chitta Venkata Reddy …Responden-defendant THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS.3012 AND 3013 OF 2009 COMMON ORDER: These revisions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are directed against the orders, dated 21-01-2009, in I.A.Nos.218 and 219 of 2008 in O.S.No.204 of 2003 respectively, on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Khammam, whereunder and whereby the applications filed to send the documents to the expert and to reopen the evidence, were dismissed. 2. As seen from the record, the application filed to send the disputed documents to the expert for comparison and opinion was dismissed on the ground that there was abnormal delay in filing the application as well as the opinion of the expert is not conclusive evidence and the Court can compare the signatures under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-plaintiff contended that due to some inadvertence of the Advocate, the party cannot be suffered and the real matter can be settled if the disputed documents along with the admitted signatures are sent to the expert for comparison and opinion and hence, he prays to allow the revision. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- defendant contended that the evidence was completed in the year 2006 and when the matter was posted for arguments, the present applications were filed only to protract the proceedings, that the trial Court after considering the material on record, rightly dismissed the applications and absolutely there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 5 . The respondent-defendant denied the signatures at the earliest opportunity by filing the written statement. In the evidence also, he admitted that he did not execute the documents in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff. Therefore, question of sending the documents to the expert for comparison and opinion does not arise. It is also suggested to the plaintiff witnesses that the defendant did not execute the documents. In such a case, the plaintiff must be diligent in sending the documents, which are in dispute. For about two years, the plaintiff kept quiet and has not raised her little finger to send the disputed documents along with the admitted signatures of the defendant to the expert for comparison and opinion. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision reported in KARUPPA GOUNDER V KUPPUSWAMY [1], on the ground that mere delay should not be a ground to dismiss the application. Considering the facts and circumstances of that case, the opinion of the expert was necessary. Therefore, the view was expressed by the learned Judge. It is not known whether at what stage, that application was filed and how many years delay in filing that application. In the case on hand, when D.W.1 himself admitted in his evidence that he has not executed any documents in favour of the petitioner, question of sending the documents to the expert does not arise. Therefore, the trial Court rightly dismissed the applications and absolutely, there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. Observations, if any, made in these revisions are only for the purpose of the disposal of the revisions and uninfluenced by any of the observations, the trial Court shall proceed with the suit in accordance with law. No order as to costs. -------------------- K.C.BHANU, J DATED:11-06- 2010 Hsd [1] AIR 2009 MADRAS 122