THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1099 of 2010 28.4.2010 Between Metla Krishna Murthy, S/o.Appa Rao … Petitioner AND Chundru Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Nageswara Rao … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1099 of 2010 ORDER: Petitioner is defendant in O.S.No.580 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Eluru. The suit was filed based on promissory note dated 24.6.2004. Respondent filed the suit for recovery of the amount. Petitioner filed written statement taking the plea of discharge. He alleged that after issuing legal notice on 09.3.2007, he went with another elder to plaintiff and paid entire promissory note amount on 19.3.2007 under Ex.B1 receipt. During the evidence, plaintiff denied execution of Ex.B1 receipt. The matter was posted for arguments. At that stage, petitioner filed I.A. No.125 of 2010 to send Ex.B1 to Handwriting expert. The same was dismissed by the impugned order dated 19.2.2010 observing that under Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (the Act), the signatures can be compared. This is assailed in this civil revision petition. This Court heard the counsel for petitioner and the counsel for respondent. When the plaintiff issued legal notice, defendant did not issue any reply notice either admitting promissory note amount or agreeing to pay the amount. Therefore, unless and until petitioner proves the allegation in the written statement that he discharged the debt under Ex.B1, dated 19.3.2007, he would likely to fail in the suit. He kept quiet for about three years and when the matter was coming up for arguments, he filed application under Section 45 of the Act. Therefore, the trial Court rightly observed that the defendant failed file such application at the earliest opportunity disclosing alleged handwritten letter, Ex.B1. When there was voluminous evidence on record, nothing prevented petitioner to come forward with such plea earlier. In this connection, the trial Court made following observations. As seen from the case record in the main suit voluminous oral evidence on both sides is already brought on record. There is no any reply notice got issued by the petitioner/ defendant at the earliest opportunity disclosing about the alleged handwritten letter (Ex.B1) said to have been passed by the respondent/ plaintiff. The main suit stands posted for arguments and at this stage, sending the disputed Ex.B1 to the expert may only cause delay to the proceedings and may not serve any useful purpose when there is already sufficient evidence on record. Even the court is empowered to make such comparison, if necessary, as per Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act. Hence the petition is dismissed. The reasoning of the learned Judge is sound and does not warrant any inference. The civil revision petition is therefore dismissed. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) April 28, 2010. YS