HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH C.R.P.Nos.4526 of 2008 and 747 of 2010 Dt.23.12.2010 C.R.P.NO.4526 OF 2008 Between: Paruchuri Siviah ..Petitioner And Kakinada Ganga Raju ..Respondent C.R.P.NO.747 OF 2010 Between: Paruchuri Siviah ..Petitioner And Kakinada Ganga Raju ..Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH C.R.P.Nos.4526 of 2008 and 747 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: The parties in both the civil revision petitions are one and the same. Petitioner in both the revision petitions is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant. O.S.No.277 of 2005 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,49,360/- basing on a pronote dated 22.12.2002. Written statement was filed by the defendant stating that the thumb impression as well as signature on the pronote does not belong to him. It is stated that the defendant changed his signature on the vakalat and written statement and as the defendant is an employee of Visakhapatnm Steel Plant and is maintaining an account in Bank of India, Steel Plant Township bearing S.B.No.1761 and the same is being operated by him as on the date of execution of the promissory note and therefore the signature containing in the specimen signature forms and the withdrawals/cheques issued by the defendant for withdrawing the amounts from the bank are essential to compare with the signature of the suit promissory note i.e., Ex.A-1 and the cheques/withdrawals of the defendant of the relevant year are also available and therefore, it cannot be said that the cheques/withdrawals during the relevant period December 2002 are not the signature of the defendant and they are admitted signatures. If that be so, the only course open for the plaintiff is to establish that the pronote executed by the defendant is by sending the said documents for expert opinion. Therefore, the petitioner filed two applications i.e., I.A.Nos.954 and 955 of 2007 respectively seeking to send the original specimen signatures, cheques/withdrawals of the defendant from the Bank of India, Steel Plant Township branch in S.B.A/c.No.1761 and to send the promissory note dated 21.12.1979 along with the admitted signatures of the defendant. The court below dismissed both the applications by the impugned orders on the ground that the applications were belated as the entire evidence was closed and suit was posted for arguments. The applications were filed in October, 2007. But, the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the said applications after 11 months. In the meanwhile, the plaintiff completed the evidence and the matter is coming up for the evidence of the defendant. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the court below ought to have disposed of the said applications immediately and keeping pending the said applications in proceeding further by permitted the plaintiff to lead the evidence, cannot be just and proper in saying that the said applications are belated one. Therefore, the impugned orders are unsustainable. Accordingly the impugned orders are set aside. The civil revision petitions are accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. _________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. 23.12.2010 kpr