HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO C.R.P. Nos.2646 & 2652 of 2010 Dated 20-08-2010 Between: Nannapaneni Sambasiva Rao ……..Petitioner Vs. Bandlamudi Srinivasa Rao and another ………Respondetns HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO C.R.P. Nos.2646 & 2652 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: Since a common question is involved in both these revision petitions, at the consent of the learned counsel on either side, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. Assailing the correctness of the orders dated 22-04-2010 passed in I.A.No.5 of 2010 in O.S.No.560 of 2008 and I.A.No.4 of 2010 in O.S.No.559 of 2008, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, in rejecting the applications purported to have been filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act (for brevity ‘the Act’), wherein the petitioner sought to take the specimen signatures of the defendant and send the same to the expert’s opinion for comparison, the petitioner filed these two revision petitions, respectively. 3. Though several contentions sought to be urged on behalf of the petitioner, however, this Court has already took a view in the earlier judgments that in the suits of this nature, where the defence plea being with all total forgery, necessarily, the burden would rest only on the plaintiff. It is for the plaintiff to make out such exercise as contemplated under Section 45 of the Act and not for the defendant. In case, if the plaintiff dos not make out any such exercise, it is always open for the defendant to take part and seek inference to be drawn, against, but not otherwise. 4. In the circumstances, I do not find any justification in filing these revisions. There are no merits in the revisions. 5. Accordingly, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. __________________ 20th August 2010 KVR