HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.975 of 2010 ORDER: The order under challenge in this revision is the order passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Narasanapeta, in I.A. No.33 of 2010 in O.S. No.29 of 2010 dated 05.02.2010. I.A. No.33 of 2010 is a petition filed under Section 45 of the Evidence Act requesting the Court to send the suit promissory note dated 17.03.2004 to an expert for comparison of the signature on Ex.A-1 with the admitted signatures of the defendant on the vakalat, written statement etc. The Court below, in the order under revision, observed that, when Ex.A-1 is in the own hand writing of the petitioner-defendant, there was no necessity to send Ex.A-1 dated 17.03.2004 to a hand writing expert; the contemporary signatures and hand writings of the defendants were not available; even if Ex.A-1 is sent to a handwriting expert his opinion cannot be taken into consideration; the petitioner-defendant had failed to explain why he could not file the petition earlier; and the application was filed only to drag on the proceedings. The Court below further observed that when Ex.A-1 was in the own handwriting of the petitioner, the question of sending it to the expert did not arise. The question whether a document should be sent for expert opinion of a handwriting expert is a matter in the discretion of the Court adjudicating the suit, and it is not necessary that, in every case where such an application is made, the document should be sent for verification by a handwriting expert. Exercise of discretion by the Court should, however, be for just and valid reasons. In an application filed by the petitioner-defendant under Section 45 of the Evidence Act to send the signatures for comparison by a handwriting expert, the Court below was wholly unjustified in recording a finding that the signature on the promissory note was that of the petitioner. There was no cause for the Court below to record such a finding in an application filed under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, as these are matters which are required to be adjudicated in the Suit on the basis of the evidence on record. The Court below also erred in holding that there were no contemporary documents. The promissory note is dated 17.03.2004 and the suit was filed in the year 2007. Sri Uma Sankar Lokanadham, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that soon after the suit was filed in the year 2007, the petitioner herein had entered appearance by filing a vakalat, and a written statement; and it is these signatures which the petitioner sought to be compared with that of the pronote. It is not even the case of the respondent-plaintiff that the signatures on the vakalat and the written statement are not that of the petitioner-defendant. The finding of the Court below, that there were no contemporary documents, is wholly unjustified more so when the petitioner had sought comparison of the signatures in the pronote with that of his signature on the vakalat and the written statement filed in the suit. Reliance placed by Sri A. Rama Rao, Learned Counsel for the respondent-plaintiff, on the judgment of this Court in Bhupathiraju Ravi Kumar v. Paluri Surya Prakasa Rao[1] is misplaced. In Bhupathiraju Ravi Kumar all that this Court held is that sending a document for comparison of the handwriting may not be of much help in the absence of signatures of the contemporary period. In the case on hand, the promissory note is dated 17.03.2004, and the signatures on the vakalat and in the written statement are said to be made in the year 2007. It cannot, therefore, be said that the signatures in the written statement or in the vakalat are not contemporaneous to the signatures in the promissory note. The Court below has exceeded its jurisdiction in recording a finding that the signature on the promissory note is that of the petitioner-defendant, and in holding that there are no contemporary documents. In exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court would not sit in appeal or substitute its views for that of the Court below. It is for the Court below to decide whether or not discretion should be exercised in sending the document for comparison of the hand writing/signature thereon. I consider it appropriate, in such circumstances, to set aside the order under revision and remand the matter back to the Court below. The Trial Court shall, after hearing both parties, decide I.A. No.33 of 2010 in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and only thereafter proceed with the hearing of the suit. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Date: 23.07.2010 Note: Furnish copy by one week. B/o MRKR [1] 2009(3) ALT 294