THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.401 of 2011 ORDER: The respondent filed O.S.No.32 of 2004 against the deceased- 1st petitioner in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Koilkuntla, for recovery of amount, on the basis of a promissory note. Written- statement was filed, pleading that the promissory note is a forged one. I.A.No.252 of 2005 was filed by the 1st petitioner, under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, with a prayer to send the promissory note, Ex.A-2, to finger print and hand-writing expert, at New Delhi. The application was allowed, and a report was submitted to the effect that the document is a forged one. The 1st petitioner filed I.A.No.59 of 2006, under Order 26 Rule 4 C.P.C., with a prayer to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner to record the evidence of the finger print and hand-writing expert. The application was ordered, and a Commissioner was appointed. However, the Commissioner returned the warrant by stating that the 1st petitioner was not cooperating. Hence, the I.A. was dismissed, through order dated 16-08-2007. It is stated that the 1st petitioner died, and petitioners 2 and 3 came on record as legal representatives. A fresh application was filed by them, being I.A.No.303 of 2010 for appointment of an Advocate- Commissioner. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through order dated 27-10-2010. Hence, this revision. Heard Sri J. Janaki Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners. It is a matter of record that the I.A.No.59 of 2006 was filed under Order 26 Rule 4 C.P.C., and an Advocate-Commissioner was appointed by the trial Court to record the evidence of the finger print and hand-writing expert. However, the I.A. had to be dismissed thereafter, on a report submitted by the Advocate-Commissioner, to the effect that the 1st petitioner is not cooperating. Assuming that any circumstances have turned in favour of the 1st petitioner, warranting appointment of Commissioner, steps ought to have been taken for challenging the order, by which the I.A.No.59 of 2006 was dismissed. Once an application filed under the same provision was dismissed, a fresh application cannot be filed, even by the legal representatives. The trial Court has taken correct view of the matter. The C.R.P is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.11-02-2011. KO