IN THE HIGH Court OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH (9TH) DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.3424 of 2010 & CRP No.3426 of 2010 CRP No.3424 of 2010: Between: Katikala China Dhanamma … Petitioner And: Katikala Soma Sundara Rao & others … Respondents CRP No.3426 of 2010: Between: Katikala China Dhanamma … Petitioner And: Katikala Soma Sundara Rao & others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.3424 of 2010 & C.R.P.No.3426 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: CRP No.3426 of 2010 is directed against the docket order dated 16.07.2010 in IA No.854 of 2010 in OS No.470 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Markapur, wherein, the said application filed by the 7th defendant under Section 151 CPC to reopen the suit for the purpose of sending the management transfer form signed by the Mandal Educational Officer, K.V. Narayana Reddy to the hand-writ expert for the purpose of comparison of his signature with that of admitted signature, was dismissed. 2. CRP No.3424 of 2010 is directed against the order dated 16.07.2010 in IA No.855 of 2010 wherein the said application filed by the petitioner-7th defendant under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, was dismissed. 3. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 4. The first respondent herein filed suit against the petitioner-7th defendant and others, for injunction. According to the petitioner herein, her father Katikala Luca, started Elementary School at Nikarampalli village and obtained recognition from the Government and her father, because of old age, transferred the management to her brother K. Aron on 01.09.1988 and subsequently on 10.10.2001, the Management was transferred by her brother in her favour. She claims that on her proposal, the District Educational Officer, recognized her as Manager of the School. She alleges that the Mandal Educational Officer, who was examined as PW.2 in the suit, falsely disowned his signature on the proposal form. She therefore seeks to send the disputed proposal form to the handwriting expert for comparing the signature of the Mandal Educational Officer by one A.V. Narayana Reddy, with his admitted signature in the deposition as PW.2. The first respondent- plaintiff opposed the application. 5. The learned Junior Civil Judge, by order dated 16.07.2010 dismissed the said application on the ground that the record discloses that the petitioner-7th defendant had knowledge of existence of the management transfer deed ever since filing of the written statement by her and she has not sought for any such records to the expert for eight years and the present application is filed at the stage of arguments without any bona fides. In view of the dismissal of the IA No.855 of 2010, the other application in IA No.854 of 2010 for reopening the evidence, was also dismissed. 6. It is to be noted that the suit is of the year 2002 and the present application is filed 8 years later in 2010, that too at the stage of arguments. Further, the petitioner-7th defendant wants the Court to send the proposal form, which according to her, contains the signature of a witness-PW.2, who was said to be the then Mandal Educational Officer. The petitioner-7th defendant wants to compare the signature of PW.2 on the proposal form with the admitted signature on the deposition, which was recorded in the year 2010. In view of the huge lapse of time of 8 years, the deposition of PW.2 cannot be said to be a document contemporaneous in nature to the alleged proposal form. That apart, PW.2 has categorically denied the signature on the proposal form. It is for the petitioner-7th defendant to establish her contention by other evidence available on record. The very fact that the present application had been filed at the time of arguments, 8 years after filing of the suit, itself indicates lack of bona fides on the part of the petitioner-7th defendant, as rightly observed by the trial Court. The discretion exercised by the learned Junior Civil Judge in refusing to accede to the request of the petitioner-7th defendant at the belated stage, does not call for any interference by this Court. 7. In the result, both the civil revision petitions are dismissed. The interim stay granted earlier in both the petitions stands vacated. No order as to costs. ___________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 09.02.2011 bss