THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4110 OF 2010 Dated: 27.12.2010 Between: Baruvemukula Anil Kumar ..... Petitioner AND Bommareddi Ramachandra Reddy and others .....Respondents THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4110 OF 2010 ORDER: The revision petitioner is the 1st defendant in O.S. No. 460 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Nidadavolu. The 1st respondent herein/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money allegedly due under Ex.A1-promissory note dated 10.10.2004 executed jointly by the defendants 1 to 5. The 1st defendant/revision petitioner filed a written statement contending that the 3rd defendant’s, signature on Ex.A1 was forged. During the trial, the plaintiff got himself examined as PW.1 and the attester and scribe of Ex.A1 promissory note were examined as PW.2 and PW.3 respectively. While the matter was coming up for the evidence of defendants, the 1st defendant filed I.A.No. 346 of 2010 with a prayer to send Ex.A.1 suit promissory note along with his admitted signatures to the handwriting expert for comparison. It was alleged in the affidavit filed in support of the application that the petitioner studied up to Intermediate and he used to put his signature in the Banks and other records only in English and that his signature alleged on Ex.A.1 promissory note in Telugu was not his signature. The plaintiff filed a counter opposing the said application and the Court below by order dated 15.07.2010 dismissed the application observing that no purpose would be served by sending Ex.A.1 promissory note to handwriting expert since the admitted signatures of the 1st defendant in Telugu were not available. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no notice is necessary to the respondents 2 to 5 as the petitioner is not seeking any relief against them. A perusal of the written statement in the main suit shows that there was no plea that the signature of the 1st defendant/revision petitioner on Ex.A.1 promissory note was forged but it was only claimed that the 3rd defendant’s signature was forged. That apart, admittedly the 1st defendant could not produce any document containing his handwriting or signature in Telugu. In the circumstances, as rightly held by the Court below no purpose would be served by sending the suit document to handwriting expert for his opinion. Moreover, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish that the Ex.A1 was executed by the defendants and the plaintiff had already got the attester and scribe of the Ex.A1 promissory note examined and they were also cross-examined by the defendants. Therefore, there is no need for sending the suit document for expert opinion at that stage. Hence, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the Order under revision and accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ___________ G.ROHINI, J Date: 27.12.2010 Ivd/tsk