THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P.No.5335 of 2009 ORDER This civil revision petition is preferred against the order dated 27-10-2009 passed in I.A.No.572 of 2009 in O.S.No.4205 of 2004, by the learned XI senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein and whereby the petition filed by the defendant under Order 17 Rule 1 read with 151 CPC seeking to adjourn the suit till the opinion of expert is arrived, was dismissed. Petitioner herein is the defendant and respondent herein is the plaintiff. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money of Rs.8,60,666/- on the foot of a promissory note. When the defendant issued two cheques for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.30,000/- for discharge of the said amount, the same were dis-honoured. But, the contention of the defendant is that he issued the said cheques to his partners and in collusion with the plaintiff the same were mis-used. While so, the plaintiff also filed CC No.608 of 2008 on the file of XX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally and in that CC, he also filed Crl.M.P.No.4549 of 2007 to send the suit promissory note for expert’s opinion and the same was allowed. Hence, the defendant filed the present application seeking an adjournment till the receipt of the expert’s opinion. The learned XI Additional Senior Civil Judge having observed that it is not possible to wait for a report, which was called upon by some other Court and that the defendant though renewed such application, he got it dismissed as not pressed and thus, he cannot ask the Court to stall the proceedings in the suit till the criminal Court receives the opinion from the expert, dismissed the petition. Challenging the same, the present civil revision petition is preferred. Heard the learned counsel on either side. A perusal of the material goes to show that on 12.11.2009 while granting interim direction, this Court directed the revision petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. Leaned counsel for the revision petitioner-defendant submits that the revision petitioner has complied with the said order. He further submits that XX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally sent the pronote to the Hand Writing Expert vide CC No.608 of 2008 and the report is yet to be received. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the above submission, the Court below is directed to adjourn the suit by four months or till the receipt of the report from the Hand Writing Expert in CC No.608 of 2008, whichever is earlier. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is disposed of. __________ 19-11-2009 rkk