THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.671 OF 2011 16.09.2011 Between: S.Ananda Kumar …Petitioner AND Yelamarthi Padmarao And another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.671 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is the plaintiff. He is the lessee of the premises belonging to Yelamarthi Padma Rao and second respondent. The petitioner filed the suit for injunction restraining his landlord from causing obstruction to the free passage to reach the leasehold premises. The lease, according to his, is oral which commenced in 2001. In the trial, the landlords marked Ex.B.3, lease deed. The petitioner objected the same contending that he never executed lease deed and that being unstamped and unregistered, it cannot be marked. By an order, dated 20.09.2010, the document was impounded and as directed by the trial Court, the respondents paid penalty and stamp duty. Be that as it is, the petitioner then filed I.A.No.1222 of 2010 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying the Court to send Ex.B.3 to handwriting expert. The application was opposed. By order, dated 21.12.2010, the trial Court dismissed the application as belated and one intended to protract the litigation. This is assailed in this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The counsel for petitioner would submit that his client entered into oral lease, and Ex.B.3, lease deed, is forged document and therefore, if it is not examined by handwriting expert, it would cause prejudice to the petitioner. The petitioner filed the suit for injunction simplicitor seeking a prohibited order against the landlords from interfering with the passage. Whether it is an oral lease or a lease in writing, there cannot be any difference in the legal injury alleged by the petitioner if he is really prevented from using the passage. Further, as the defendants have already filed an affidavit of D.W.2, attestor of the lease deed, and the same would be enough for the Court to arrive at the truth of the matter. The civil revision petition, in that view of the matter, is misconceived and this Court does not find any grave error apparent on the face of record. The civil revision petition is therefore dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 16.09.2011 Pln