HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1401 OF 2008. DATED 20TH AUGUST, 2010. BETWEEN Rajanala Venkata Ramana Rao ….Petitioner And Koganti Venkata Ratnam and ors ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1401 OF 2008. ORAL ORDER: Heard both sides. 2. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order and decree, dated 22.02.2008, passed by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Fast Track Court, Vijayawada, dismissing the application I.A.No.9 of 2008 in O.S.No.378 of 2001, ﬁled under Order XXVI Rule 10 (A) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to send the signatures of Defendant Nos.1 and 2 over Ex.A-1 for comparison with the signatures available on Vakalat and written statement by the expert of Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad. 3. Petitioner is defendant No.2, respondent No.1 is the plaintiﬀ and respondent Nos.2 to 6 are defendant Nos.1 and 3 to 6 in the suit. 4. For the sake of convenience, in this order, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the suit. 5. I have perused the impugned order as well as the other material, available on record. 6. The Court below pointed out some defects in the application ﬁled by defendant No.2; firstly, to which address the document need to be sent is not clearly mentioned and on the other hand, instead of mentioning as Government Examiner, it was mentioned as Government Handwriting expert, Deputy Director of Kochin, secondly, the defendant No.2 did not enclose the contemporaneous documents bearing the authenticated signature for comparison with the disputed document, thirdly, the petitioner wanted to send the signatures over the vakalat and written statement for comparison with the disputed document. But, the vakalat and written statement were ﬁled during the pendency of the suit in the year 2005 or 2006 whereas the document in dispute was allegedly executed in the year 1998. Therefore, it was pointed out that there is every possibility of defendant No.2 ingenuously changing his style of signature while putting the same on the vakalat and written statement. Fourthly, having veriﬁed the disputed document, there is every chance for the petitioner to change his style of signature and put it in diﬀerent way in the documents, which are available in the Court. Therefore, sending of vakalat and written statement for comparison with Ex.A.1 serves no purpose and fifthly, it is necessary to compare contemporary documents of the year 1998 or nearby period to arrive at a right conclusion, but the petitioner could not submit any such authenticated document bearing his genuine signature. On the contrary, the only signatures containing on the vakalat and written statement, which were ﬁled in the year 2005 or 2006, alone were sought to be sent for comparison. 7. For the foregoing reasons, the court below has rightly dismissed the application. I do not ﬁnd any reason to allow the application ﬁled by the petitioner. However, it is to be seen that opinion of the expert is not conclusive and the same is subject to the scrutiny by the Court and as well as by the other side, by cross examining the expert. That apart, even in the event of a party losing the case, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, such party is having an eﬃcacious alternative remedy to ﬁle an appeal against the order of dismissal of the application. 8. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the order under revision. 9. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed, at the stage of admission. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ---------------------------------- JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 20T H AUGUST, 2010. Msnr.