HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2251 of 2011 Date:05.08.2011 Between: Bheemidi Balakrishna Reddy And 15 others. ..... Petitioners AND Gurram Buchi Reddy And 41 others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners : M/s Pottigari Sridhar Reddy Counsel for Respondents : Smt G.Neeraja Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order, dated 13.04.2011, in I.A.No.2093 of 2010 in A.S.No.26 of 2008 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Nalgonda. The petitioners are the defendants in the above noted appeal pending before the learned Principal District Judge, Nalgonda. They have suffered a decree in O.S.No.89 of 1993 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda, filed by the respondents for partition. During the pendency of the said suit, the petitioners filed I.A.No.1262 of 2007 for sending the signatures of P.W-1 on certain documents along with those contained in Exs.B-1 to B-3 for opinion of the Handwriting expert. The said I.A. was dismissed by the trial Court by order, dated 20.11.2007. The petitioners allowed the said order to attain finality. It is only about two years after the filing of the appeal, that the petitioners filed I.A.No.2093 of 2010 with a request to send the same documents i.e., Exs.B-1 to B-3 for opinion of the Handwriting expert. This application was dismissed by the learned Principal District Judge, Nalgonda on the reasoning that the said request having already been rejected by the trial Court vide its order, dated 20.11.2007, which has become final, the petitioners are not entitled to make a similar request in the appeal. After hearing Sri P.Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that the reasoning of the Court below does not suffer from any error warranting interference of this Court. While ordinarily an application for sending the documents for expert opinion at the appellate stage itself is not entertainable, in the present case, the petitioners have already moved the trial Court with such a request which was rejected. Therefore, there can be no reason for the petitioners again to file a similar application in the appeal filed against the judgment and decree passed in the suit. For the above mentioned reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition, C.R.P.M.P.No.3178 of 2011 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 05th August, 2011 DR