HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P.No. 5120 of 2009 O R D E R The revision petitioner is challenging the order dated 27.8.2009 passed in IA No. 1213 of 2009 in OS No. 46 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit in OS No. 46 of 2007 for recovery of the amount basing on a promissory note and deposit of title deeds dated 6.12.2000. The respondent’s case is that the revision petitioner had borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from him on 6.12.2000 for his business necessities and on 8.12.2000 he had executed a memo of deposit of title deeds and thus created an equitable mortgage for realization of the amount covered by the suit pronote. It is also his case that on 4.12.2003 the defendant has paid an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards part payment of the suit pronote debt and has made an endorsement on the reverse side of the said promissory note. This endorsement is marked as Ex.A2 before the lower court. Since the revision petitioner failed to pay the debt amount a legal notice was issued on 1.9.2006 by the respondent and when the revision petitioner sent a reply dated 15.9.2006 denying his liability as also even execution of the pronote and deposit of title deeds he filed a suit for recovery of the amount. 3. The revision filed a written statement denying all the plaint allegations that he had borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- on 6.12.2000 for his business purpose and execution of memo of deposit of title deeds and even making part payment of an amount of Rs.30,000/- on 4.12.2003. The specific case of the revision petitioner is that he was doing milk business with one Suri Babu of Paloncha Town, Khammam District and for the purpose of granting milk agency the said Suri Babu obtained his signatures on blank papers, on blank non-judicial stamp papers and printed and unfilled papers and subsequently, those papers are used for filing this case against him. This written statement was filed on 5.7.2007. The original suit was filed in the month of December, 2006. The lower court contended that the petitioner herein has admitted his signatures and admitted execution of the suit documents and therefore, the question of determination of ink used in Ex.A1 does not arise. 4. According to the respondent, Ex.A1 is dated 6.12.2000 and Ex.A3 is dated 8.12.2000 and the endorsement on Ex.A2 on the reverse side of Ex.A1 is dated 4.12.2003. His specific case is that one Suri Babu had obtained his signatures on blank papers on 2.12.2000 and on 10.12.2000. It is also his case that he started business with Suri Babu on 11.12.2000, which ended in the year 2005. It is also his case that the said Suri Babu evaded to return those papers to him. Admittedly, the suit was filed in the year 2006 and the petitioner herein had sent a reply notice on 15.9.2006 and the present application had been filed in the year 2009 and after the evidence of the respondent is completed, when a party takes a specific plea that his signatures were obtained on blank papers he has to explain under what circumstances he was forced to do so and the burden lies on him to prove that his signatures were obtained on blank stamped papers. He must also explain as to what steps he had taken to take back those signed documents and what action he had initiated against the person, who had obtained his signatures on blank papers. Simply saying that his signatures were obtained on blank papers and had not taken any action for years together reveals that prima-facie his version is not true. 5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied on Penumastha Ramachandra Raju V. Gaddam Raja Sekhar Reddy[1] wherein this court held that when signatures are obtained on blank papers his request to send to hand writing expert can be considered. Each case has to be decided on its own facts and circumstances. 6. Any how, since the suit is pending I am not inclined to express any opinion with regard to merits and demerits of the case. It is stated that plaintiff’s side evidence is closed and it is now coming for the revision petitioner-defendant to adduce evidence before the lower court. If at all he wanted to send those documents to hand writing expert, nothing prevented him to take steps at initial stage of the suit itself and he would not have waited for more than two years in taking a decision whether to request the court to send the documents to the hand writing expert or not. I do not see any grounds to interfere with the order passed by the lower court and accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. No costs. ________________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR,J Dt. 03-02-2011. Mjl/* [1] 2005(6) ALT 49