HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1250 OF 2008 DATE:25-02-2011 BETWEEN Gudivaka Lakshmi Narayana …Petitioner AND Gandu Narayana Rao …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1250 OF 2008 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. In spite of service of notice, the respondent has not chosen to put up appearance opposing the revision. Defendant-petitioner herein filed I.A. in G.L.No.909 of 2006 (memo) in O.S.No.43 of 2003 for issuing summons to the Tahsildar, Koduru to produce the stock registers and sales registers in respect of the years 2001 and 2002, which contain the admitted signatures of the petitioner which can be compared with the signatures on Ex.A.1 pronote. On dismissal of the said I.A., petitioner herein filed C.R.P.No.4536 of 2006 before this Court. This Court while setting aside the dismissal order, directed the Court below to pass orders afresh on the I.A. Pursuant to the same, it appears that no steps have been taken by the lower Court for summoning the said documents, but the report furnished by the lower Court discloses that as per the directions in C.R.P.No.4536 of 2006, the suit was advanced suo moto and an opportunity was given to the petitioner to prove his signatures and also for the purpose of marking documents, the Tahsildar was summoned along with the original report and that the document was sent to the expert for comparison. On 13.3.2008 the Tahsildar, Koduru was present and was examined as D.W.3 and Exs.X.1 to X.6 were marked. The defendant’s counsel reported no further evidence and therefore, the defendant’s evidence was closed and the matter was posted for arguments to 17.3.2008, on which date, arguments were heard on behalf of plaintiff and for the arguments on defendant’s side, the matter was posted to 19.3.2008. However, on 28.4.2008 a copy of stay order, dated 28.4.2008 passed in the present revision has been received. The grievance of the petitioner is that the lower Court by order, dated 28.9.2005 allowed I.A.No.290 of 2005 holding that the petitioner is entitled to establish his case by way of sending Ex.A.1 pronote to the competent expert as per the plea taken. In view of the same, the Tahsildar, Koduru has to produce the registers for the years 2001 and 2002, if any, available, and that the lower Court ought to have summoned the said registers and if the admitted signatures of the petitioner are available, the same should be sent to expert for comparison with the signature on Ex.A.1 pronote, but the said procedure has not been undertaken by the lower Court. In view of the above, the lower Court is directed to dispose of I.A.No. (G.L.No.878) of 2008 said to have been filed by the petitioner on 17.3.2008 before proceeding with the suit, after giving due opportunity to all the parties. Accordingly, the revision is disposed of. No costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. FEBRUARY 25, 2011 Tsr.