IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1523 OF 2010 Between: Tiragati Krishna … Petitioner And Chokkakula Satyanarayana … Respondent This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1523 of 2010 ORDER:- Petitioner/defendant is in revision assailing the correctness of the order passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry in dismissing I.A.No.1623 of 2009 in O.S.No.519 of 2008, dated 11.02.2010 filed to refer the suit promissory note to Government examiner for questioned documents for determining the age of the signature on Ex.A1-promissory note. The plea of the petitioner is that he did not execute the suit promissory note on 03.09.2006 and one R.Gopalakrishna, who is the colleague of the petitioner, has obtained blank promissory note from the petitioner in the year 2001 and the said blank promissory note is pressed into service for the suit amount, which is admitted as Ex.A1 in the suit. Therefore, it is necessary to send the document to the handwriting expert for determining the age of the signature on the suit promissory note. The trial Court observed that no useful purpose would be served, if the suit promissory note is referred to the handwriting expert for determining the age of the signature on Ex.A1, because the expert cannot accurately decide the age of the ink issued for putting the signature of the petitioner and his evidence is not a conclusive proof. When the petitioner took a plea that he was in the habit of signing blank promissory notes and delivers the same to R.Gopalakrishna, it is for him to establish the said fact. Once the petitioner admitted the signature on the suit promissory note, it has to be established and proved by the respondent about its execution on 03.09.2006 by examining the scribe or attestor of the document. It is now fairly well settled that the expert evidence cannot outweigh the direct evidence tendered in proof of execution of the promissory note. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the trial Court does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 23rd April 2010 lmv