THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 2913 of 2010 ORAL ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition has been filed aggrieved by the order dated 22.4.2010 passed in I.A.No. 79 of 2009 in OS.No. 176 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ankapalle. Petitioner herein is the defendant in the suit and he filed I.A.No. 79 of 2009 under Section 45 of the Evidence Act read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code for sending the suit Exs A1 and A2 promissory notes to handwriting expert for comparison of the signature contained across the revenue stamps on Ex. A1 and A2 promissory notes with the admitted signature of the defendant. That application was dismissed by the court below stating that the petitioner-defendant therein filed the application to drag on the proceedings and the court below is not inclined to send Exs A1 and A2 promissory notes to expert for comparison of the signature of petitioner-defendant and to determine the age of the paper of Ex. A1 and A2 suit promissory notes, age of ink and age of revenue stamps and the petition filed by the petitioner-defendant at a belated stage i.e. one month after closure of the evidence of respondent-plaintiff side in suit. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the order passed by the court below suffers from infirmity and the court below was not justified in dismissing the application. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also perused the entire material made available on record. As seen from the record, the petitioner-defendant mentioned in his petition affidavit that Exs A1 and A2 are fabricated and created one. The Court below after considering rival contentions observed that the petitioner-defendant took a plea that Exs A1 and A2 promissory notes are fabricated and created one, and as such, it amounts to admission of signature across the revenue stamps on Exs A1 and A2 suit promissory notes by petitioner-defendant. Therefore, the court below rightly rejected the application stating that the petitioner filed the application with an intention to drag on the suit proceedings. That apart, the scope of Section 45 is very narrow and limited, therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the court below. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J DATE: 23.07.2010 KA