ORDER :

Heard Sri Narasimha Rao Gudiseva, learned counsel for revision-petitioners. No representation for respondent for the last two adjournments, though post under the caption ‘FOR ORDERS’.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is directed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for brevity ‘CPC’) against the Order, dated 20.04.2015 in I.A.No.139 of 2014 in A.S.No.9 of 2012 on the file of X Additional District Judge’s Court, Machilipatnam of Krishna District.

3. It is the contention of revision-petitioners that they preferred appeal vide A.S.No.9 of 2012 on the file of X Additional District Court, Krishna at Machilipatnam against the Decree and Judgment passed by the I Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Machilipatnam in O.S.No.459 of 2008. During the pendency of appeal proceedings, the revision-petitioners filed petition under Order XLI Rule 27 (1) (aa) and Section 151 of CPC read with Section 45 of the Evidence Act, 1872 to send the disputed suit promissory notes to the Government Handwriting Expert for his ‘Opinion’ and the same was ‘Dismissed’ on 20.04.2015, challenging the said impugned Order, the revision was preferred.

4. The point that arises for consideration is:-

“