THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2310 OF 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 15.04.2010, in I.A.No.9 of 2010 in A.S.No.17 of 2009, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gooty, whereunder and whereby, the petition, filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short, “C.P.C.”) read with Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to send Ex.A1 – Suit Promissiory Note along with the admitted signatures of the petitioner to the Hand Writing Expert, Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, for comparison, was dismissed on the ground that the present application appears to have been filed with a view to fill up the lacunae in the appeal. 2. Heard. 3. Receipt of additional evidence at appellate stage is not a matter of routine or course. Unless the case of the petitioner falls under any one of the three categories mentioned under Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C., the receipt of additional evidence cannot be admitted. Earlier, a petition was filed by the petitioner in the trial Court to summon the Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, Guntakal, so as to produce the contemporaneous signatures of the petitioner, which are available with the Bank. That petition was allowed and summons was taken, but the Branch Manager did not produce the contemporaneous signatures of the petitioner available with the Bank. Then the trial Court directed the petitioner to file a petition to take coercive steps to summon the Branch Manager. The petitioner, in spite of giving an opportunity, has not filed such petition. She has not availed the opportunity given to her by the trial Court. It is not a case where the trial Court refused or denied to receive the evidence or to give opportunity to the petitioner to send Ex.A1 – Suit Promissory Note along with the admitted signatures of the petitioner to the Hand Writing Expert for comparison. The petitioner ought to have taken effective and proper steps in the trial Court itself, when the trial Court permitted her to file a petition to take steps against the Branch Manager for not producing the contemporaneous signature of the petitioner available with the Bank. No such steps have been taken in the trial Court. The present petition, as rightly observed by the appellate Court, appears to have been filed only to fill up the gaps and lacunae at the stage of appeal. Therefore, the revision petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 4. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J November 10, 2010 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2310 OF 2010 Between: B. Bhagya .....PETITIONER AND Y. Mahaboob Basha ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2310 OF 2010 November 10, 2010