THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R. VARMA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3297 OF 2010 Date: 30-07-2010 Between Kondapalli Panduranga Rao …..Petitioner And Indian Bank, Machilipatnam, rep., by its Senior Branch Manager, Machilipatnam, Krishna District …..Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R. VARMA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3297 OF 2010 ORDER: Heard. 2. This civil revision petition is directed against the order, dated 06-07-2009, passed by the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam dismissing I.A No. 407 of 2010 in O.S No. 463 of 2003, filed by the petitioner under Section 151 CPC. 3. The petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff, in the suit, before the Court below. 4. From the very nature of relief, it appears that the prayer was somewhat peculiar and incomprehensible. However, it appears from the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier an application was filed by the petitioner under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and the same was allowed initially. For one reason or the other, the expert could not express his opinion and requested the Court to send some additional signatures for expression of his opinion. At that stage, in spite of the liberty granted by the Court below on many occasions, the petitioner did not take any steps. Though the matter was adjourned on payment of costs, costs were, paid but the petitioner – defendant has not proceeded with the evidence. Therefore, the evidence on his side was closed and the matter was posted for arguments on 08-06-2010 and in fact the arguments of the respondent – plaintiff were heard and the matter was posted for the petitioner’s arguments on 10-06-2010. At that stage, he filed the present application which was dismissed by the Court below holding that the petitioner is not interested to proceed with the matter but is dragging on the proceedings by filing frivolous and vexatious petitions. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present petition. 5. The manner in which the petitioner is proceeding with the matter and the time and the context in which the present petition came to be filed is not acceptable to this Court. Therefore, I see no merit in the civil revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission. However, there shall be no order as to costs. D.S.R. VARMA, J 30-07-2010 ks