1. The plaintiff is the petitioner in this revision which is directed against the order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram in I.A. No. 1232 of 2002 in O.S. No. 24 of 2006. The said I.A. has been moved by the plaintiff under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act read with Section 15 of C.P.C. for referring the documents Ex.B-2 and B-3 preferably to a government handwriting expert to obtain his opinion as to whether signature appended on both those exhibits are the same as that of the plaintiff, who was examined earlier as P.W.1 in the suit. That Interlocutory Application was dismissed. Hence, this revision.

2. Plaintiff instituted the suit O.S. No. 24 of 2006 seeking decree for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 24.06.2003 and alternatively seeking refund of the advance sale consideration paid in part in a sum of Rs. 50,000/- together with interest at 24% per annum totaling to Rs. 82,666/- as on the date of institution of the suit from the defendant. The suit is instituted on 08.03.2006 and the defendant filed a detailed written statement on 18.07.2006.

3. The defendant has denied execution of the alleged suit agreement of sale dated 24.06.2003. He also denied receipt of the part of the sale consideration amount of Rs. 50,000/- (para 4 of the written statement). In paragraph 5 of the written statement, however, the defendant has admitted that he and his son owned land in Sy. No. 334/11 of Kathipudi Village. He has further admitted that the plaintiff and her husband along with Sri K. Chalapati Rao of Kathipudi approached the defendant and his son for sale of the land situate in Sy.No.334/11 with a view to develop it into a layout and construct an orphanage there, as they have received funds from America. After prolonged discussions, the defendant and his son agreed to sell the land at the rate of Rs. 2,20,000/- per acre and accordingly executed an agreement of sale on 10.06.2003 after receiving an advance amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-. It was further asserted in paragraph 6 of the written statement that immediately the parties have proceeded to the land and got it measured in the presence of the plaintiff, her husband and Sri Chalapati Rao and the total extent of land came to Ac.3.06 cents and the plaintiff and her husband have agreed to purchase the entire extent of the land at the rate of Rs. 2,20,000/- per acre and that they will pay the balance sale consideration amount within fifteen days itself. The written statement in paragraph 6 has set out that when the plaintiff has failed to repay the balance sale consideration amount before 10.07.2003, the date originally agreed upon for payment of the balance sale consideration amount, when contacted, plaintiff has pleaded inability to pay the balance sale consideration amount as sufficient funds have not been received from America. In paragraph 7 of the written statement, the events that took place after the legal notice was received by the defendant on 24.05.2004, sent up by the plaintiff has been adverted to. It was the specific case of the defendant that he and his son have raised a dispute before elders by name Sri Matsa Satyanarayanaa and Sri Thota Apparao and the elders have settled the dispute amicably by directing the defendant and his son to refund the advance amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the plaintiff and that the agreement of sale executed by the defendant on 10.06.2003 with an endorsement of cancellation made thereon shall be returned by the plaintiff. Accordingly, the defendant and his son returned the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- and the plaintiff returned the agreement of sale dated 10.06.2003 with an endorsement dated 05.06.2004 to the effect that she received Rs. 1,00,000/- and the agreement stood cancelled in the presence of the elders. It is also asserted in paragraph 7 of the written statement that on the same date the plaintiff gave another letter to the effect that she is withdrawing the legal notice got issued by her. Hence, the defen