THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.No.2854 of 2009 Date of Order: 15-04-2011 Between: Nidamanuru Rama Rao ..Petitioner and Guduru Nageswara Rao ..Respondent The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.No.2854 of 2009 Oral order: This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution is to revise the dismissal order of the Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam passed in I.A.No.620 of 2009 in O.S.No.253 of 2004 dated 11-06-2009 filed under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for sending Ex.A1—suit pronote to handwriting expert for comparison. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit to recover a sum of Rs.2,37,125/- being balance of amount due under promissory note dated 03- 01-2002—Ex.A1 executed by Smt.Nidamanuru Lakshmi w/o of the petitioner. The petitioner filed written statement denying the same. The respondent’s counsel filed a memo requesting the court to direct the petitioner to produce certain records, which was allowed by order dated 20-03-2009 directing the petitioner to produce election identity card and voters list of Gannavaram Assembly. When the case is posted for the evidence of defendant, the present IA came to be filed to send Ex.A1— pronote to the hand writing expert to find out whether the name of the executant of Ex.A1 is Nidamanuru Lakshmi or Nidamanuru Lakshmi Narasamma. The lower court dismissed the same on the ground that the evidence of D.W.1 clinchingly discloses that his wife Smt. Nidamanuru Lakshmi executed Exs.A4 and A5 in favour of third parties but he wanted to ignore the said registered documents and tried to compare to Ex.A1 with Ex.B1—registered sale deed, dated 30-04-2002 executed by petitioner’s wife in favour of Dandabattina Subba Rao under registered document No.2092/2002 and Ex.B3—membership identity card issued by Tennuru Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society are genuine documents. Since Ex.B1—Xerox copy of sale deed said to have been executed by the deceased Nidamanuru Lakshmi Narasamma and likewise her name was referred in Ex.B3 in the same manner, the application lacks bona fides and accordingly dismissed the same. Sri M.R.K.Chowdary, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant strenuously contended that Ex.A1—registered sale deed executed by the petitioner’s wife showing her name as Nidamanuru Lakshmi Narasamma. All along there is dispute that his second wife is Nidamanuru Lakshmi Narasamma but not Lakshmi as pleaded by the respondent/plaintiff; therefore, petitioner should be given an opportunity to prove the same by comparing the signatures on Ex.A1 with that of Ex.B1—Xerox copy of the sale deed and Ex.B3—member ship identify card. This Court does not find any merit in the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner because Exs.A4 and A5 sale deeds executed by the petitioner’s wife in favour of third parties are contemporus to the pronote. It is not disputed that the signatures on Ex.A1 can be compared with Ex.A4. Further, the evidence of an expert is a weak piece of evidence and it cannot outweigh the direct evidence adduced by the parties. Plaintiff would prove Ex.A1 by examining the scribe and attestors. The present application appears to be filed only to drag on the proceedings. In view of the same, no infirmity is discernable to the order passed by the lower court warranting interference. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. 15-04-2011 Murthy