HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH C.R.P.Nos.2442 and 2448 of 2010 Dt.9.7.2010 C.R.P.NO.2442 of 2010 Between: V.Mani ..Petitioner And Chinta Muralidhar Reddy and others ..Respondents C.R.P.NO.2448 of 2010 Between: V.Mani ..Petitioner And Chinta Muralidhar Reddy and others ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH C.R.P.Nos.2442 and 2448 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: These two civil revision petitions are directed against the order, dated 19.3.2010, in I.A.Nos.159 of 2010 and 160 of 2010 respectively in O.S.No.76 of 2008 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Tirupati. It is stated that the petitioner herein is defendant No.3 in the suit filed by the respondent for specific performance of the agreement of sale. It is stated that the said agreement of sale is fabricated and forged and the ink used for signature and ink used for writing the contents of the document are different and there is difference of period in subscribing the same. Therefore, defendants filed an application in I.A.No.160 of 2010 in the said O.S.No.76 of 2008 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Tirupati, for sending Ex.A-1 suit agreement to handwriting expert for his opinion to know the ages of inks used by the document writer and the defendants. Another application in I.A.No.159 of 2010 was also filed to reopen the matter for the purpose of filing the petition for sending Ex.A-1 to the handwriting expert. It is the case of the respondent/plaintiff that the defendants were taking time for filing written statements on 8.8.2008, 26.8.2008, 12.9.2008, 26.9.2008 and lastly on 14.10.2008 and they have failed to file the written statement and therefore they were set ex parte and posted the matter to 4.11.2008 and at that point of time they came up with an application to set aside the ex parte order and the said application was allowed permitting them to contest the suit. It is stated that the evidence was over and the case was posted for arguments on 8.2.2010 and again it was posted to 9.2.2010, 10.2.2010, 15.2.2010 and 17.2.2010 and when the matter is posted to 17.2.2010 for filing written arguments on behalf of the defendants they have come up with the said application only to drag the suit. The court below by order dated 19.3.2010 dismissed the said application in I.A.No.160 of 2010 holding that Ex.A-1 is said to have been executed in 2007, whereas the present application is filed in 2010 when the matter was coming on for written arguments on behalf of the defendants. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not see any bonafides on the part of the petitioner in filing the said application. It is for the petitioner to rebut the allegations of the plaintiff by adducing appropriate oral and documentary evidence. I am of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in sending Ex.A-1 to the handwriting expert to know the ages of the inks used and it is not possible exactly when the said document was executed. The said document has to be proved in accordance with law. Therefore, the court below rightly dismissed the said application. The civil revision petitions are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. 9.7.2010 kpr