THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Revision Petition No.4879 of 2009 Date: 13-11-2009 Between Vallabhaneni Jayanthi … Petitioner/Defendant and Katamneni Venkateswara Rao … Respondent/Plaintiff THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Revision Petition No.4879 of 2009 Oral Order: Heard Sri S.Satyanarayana Moorthy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision petition is directed against the order and decree, dated 06-10-2009, passed by the V Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada, Krishna district in dismissing the application I.A.No.706 of 2009 in O.S.No.394 of 2008, filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 151 of CPC seeking to send the alleged signatures of Ex.A-1 i.e., suit promissory note to compare with the admitted signatures of the petitioner to the Government Forensic Laboratory, Hyderabad for opinion of the Government handwriting expert. 3. The petitioner herein is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit before the Court below. 4. The defence taken by the defendant before the Court below was that the suit promissory note is rank forged. 5. From a perusal of the impugned order, it could be seen that the suit was posted for arguments. However, this application was filed on 18-8-2009 along with the chief-examination affidavit of the defendant as D.W.1. 6. But, subsequent to the filing of the said application, D.W.1 was cross-examined. That apart, the defendant produced another witness on his side. The said witness also was cross- examined. The plaintiff had also let in evidence. Therefore, it was found by the Court below that for all purposes, the evidence on both sides was over and the documentary evidence had also pressed into service and the same was on record. It was specifically pointed out in the present context that the defendant, having filed the application along with the chief-examination affidavit, did not press the same at any point of time during the course of trial. 7. In other words, this application was not pressed at any time when the defendant was examined himself as a witness or examining another person as a witness on his behalf or when the plaintiff was examined. Only when the evidence was adduced on both sides and when the matter was posted for arguments, the present application was sought to be pressed by the defendant. 8. This silence all through the proceedings is to be noticed in this case and at this point of time, that too after completion of the evidence on both sides, particularly when the matter is posted for arguments, the defendant, having kept silent all through, cannot all of a sudden get up and raise this contention that the application filed earlier by him was not considered. The conduct on the part of the defendant would only show his indulgent attitude, which cannot be appreciated. 9. For the aforementioned, I do not find any merit in the revision. 10. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission, confirming the order under revision. ___________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 13th November, 2009. Ak