In C.R.P.No. 3191/07, this Court ordered notice before admission on 31-7-2007 and granted interim stay and on 18-9-2007 the Civil Revision Petition was admitted.Sri A. Rama Rao entered appearance and filed C.R.P.M.P.No. 2827/2008 to vacate the interim order. It is also stated by Sri Purushotham, the learned Counsel representing revision petitioner that there is a connected Civil Revision Petition C.R.P.No. 3686/2007 and hence this Court directed C.R.P.No. 3191/2007 to appear in the list along with the connected C.R.P.No. 3686/2007. The said Civil Revision Petition C.R.P.No. 3686/2007 was admitted on 20-8-2007.

2. C.R.P.No. 3191/2007 is filed against an order made in I.A.No. 199/2007 in O.S. No. 190/2004 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, wherein the revision petitioner herein - the defendant in the suit filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter in short referred to as 'the Code' for the purpose of convenience) praying for reopening of the matter on defendant's side enabling the revision petitioner to file an application to examine the expert and to get the document marked through the expert in the interest of justice. The learned Judge after recording reasons dismissed the said application without costs. Aggrieved by the same, C.R.P.No. 3191/2007 had been preferred.

3. Likewise, C.R.P.No. 3686/2007 is filed by the self-same petitioner-defendant being aggrieved of an order made in I.A.No. 200/2007 in O.S.No. 190/2004 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam. The said application was filed by the revision petitioner under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 read with Section 151 of the Code praying for sending the document to Government Handwriting Expert or to any Private Handwriting Expert for examination of the admitted signatures and disputed signatures in the interest of justice. The learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, after recording reasons dismissed the said application without costs.Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition had been preferred.

4. Sri Purshotham, the learned Counsel representing revision petitioner in both the Civil Revision Petitions would maintain that in fact no opportunity had been given to comply with the objections and the Counsel also explained the relevant docket entries and would maintain that even as per the docket proceedings, the Court had not given any opportunity to the petitioner and closed the evidence and posted the matter for arguments. The Counsel also would maintain that there is no stage for moving an application for sending the document to be examined by an Expert and in the light of the facts and circumstances, the matter to be reopened and the document in question to be sent to an Expert as prayed for. The Counsel also relied on certain decisions.

5. On the contrary, Sri Rama Rao, the learned Counsel representing respondent would maintain that the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit O.S.No. 190/2004 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam and the suit was filed for recovery of money based on a promissory note. The Counsel also would maintain that the evidence on both sides had been closed and the suit was posted for arguments on 26-3-2007 and at that stage I.A.No. 199/2007 was filed to reopen the suit and another application I.A.No. 200/2007 was filed to send the document to an Expert for the purpose of comparing the admitted signatures with the disputed signatures. The Counsel also pointed out that the revision petitioner filed I.A.No. 76/2006 to send the self-same document in question to an Expert for the purpose of examination and the same was allowed and the Handwriting Expert addressed a letter on 22-11-2006 to the effect that those documents were not sufficient to examine or compare the signatures and requested for furnishing of some more signatures and again the Handwriting Expert addressed another letter dt. 20-12-2006 to furnish the