VELAMALA JAGADISH Vs. IPPLI HARANADHA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Chandra Sekhar Rao, Counsel representing the petitioner and Sri Rajasekhara Rao, Counsel representing the respondent.

(2.) The Civil Revision Petition is filed as against an order made in I.A.No. 546/2003 in O.S.No.19/2003 on the fileof Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam.

(3.) The Revision Petitioner/ defendant in suit O.S.No. 19/2003 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam/ moved the application I.A.No.546/2003 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 praying for sending the documents - the suit demand promissory note along with signatures of the defendant on Vakalath and written statement/ to the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad for opinion for the reasons which had been specified in the affidavit filed in support of the application. It was stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application that the Revision petitioner/defendant never borrowed any amount and never executed any promissory note and had never seen the plaintiff and in such circumstances prayed for the relief specified supra. The respondent/ plaintiff filed a counter in detail opposing the application. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam had dismissed the application holding that the petitioner had filed the said application only with a view to drag the proceedings. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is preferred.