THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P. Nos.1592, 1665 and 1640 of 2007 Date of Order: 20-12-2010 C.R.P. Nos.1592 of 2007 Between: 1.Kotha Ramachandra Rao ..Petitioner and Chunduri Srirama Chandra Murthy ..Respondent The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P. Nos.1592, 1665 and 1640 of 2007 Common order: Since the issue in all these revision petitions is one and the same, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common order. All these revisions are filed under Order 227 of the Constitution of India to revise the orders of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, dt.8-3-2007 passed in IA No.250/2007 and IA No.251/2007 in OS No.45/2005 and orders of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada dt. 5-3-2007 passed in IA No.157/2007 in OS No.44/2005 respectively, whereunder petitions filed by the respective plaintiffs under Sec.45 of the Evidence Act for sending the signatures on Ex.A-1 ie., suit promissory note dt. 21-4-2003 and the signatures on chief affidavit dt. 4-1-2007 and other admitted signatures that could be taken from him by this court for comparison to the Government Expert, have been dismissed. It is not disputed, earlier the signature of the respondent-defendant on the suit promissory note was sent to the Hand Writing Expert. He submitted his report. He was examined and cross examined on the report given by him. He stated that the signature of the respondent-defendant was a forged one. The trial court dismissed the petitions solely on the ground that earlier signature of the respondent/defendant on the suit pronote was sent to the Hand Writing Expert, who opined that the signature was forged one and therefore there is no necessity to send again the signatures of the attestors to any Handwriting Expert. Further, under Sec. 45 of the Evidence Act, a party cannot ask for sending of the document to another expert on the ground that the opinion of the first expert is not favourable to him. Once the signature of the respondent/defendant is a forged as the per the evidence of the Handwriting Expert, sending the signature of the attestors on the pronote to the Handwriting Expert does not arise in the absence of any plea to the said effect. Further, the evidence of expert is not conclusive, and when the attestors are to be examined, the plaintiff may sufficiently cross examine them on that aspect. The discretion exercised by the trial court is not at all called for any interference by this court. All the revision petitions are accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. Dt.20-12-2010 kmr