HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO C.R.P.Nos.5111 and 5114 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: The petitioner in these two revisions is the plaintiff. He seeks to assail the order dated 11.9.2009 made in I.A. Nos. 504 of 009 and 505 of 2009 in O.S. Nos. 101 and 374 of 2005 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupathi, whereby, the applications filed by the respondents herein for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for recording of the evidence of a handwriting expert, who resides in Delhi were allowed. Admittedly, in the suit, at the instance of the respondent-defendant No.2, though initially the application was dismissed, but on the intervention of this Court in the revision, the document was sent to an expert for opinion at Delhi. After the report was filed by the Advocate Commissioner, the present applications, being, I.A. Nos. 504 and 505 of 2009 have been filed for the purpose of recording of evidence of the handwriting expert, through Commission. Those two applications are allowed by the court below, through the impugned common order. Hence, these revisions. Though, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the applications are allowed, it will cause great injustice and inconvenience to him, I do not find any merit in the said contention in as much as no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner by allowing of the said applications. By taking into account the totality of circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the court below in exercise of its discretion. The revision petitions are devoid of any merits and they are accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________ B. PRAKASH RAO,J Date: 10th February, 2011 pnb