THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CRP NO.604 OF 2007 17-06-2010 Between: Rentachintala Srinivasa Rao ..petitioner Vs. J.Prabhakara Sastry and others …Respondents. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CRP NO.604 OF 2007 ORAL ORDER This is a revision by the plaintiff in O.S.No.28 of 2003 on the file of the court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. The suit was for recovery of suit amount on the basis of a promissory note dated 16-01-2000. The suit was against two defendants, the first of whom died and his legal representatives were brought on record as defendant Nos.3 to 6. The claim of the plaintiff was that the suit pronote was executed jointly by the defendant Nos.1 and 2. The 2nd defendant denied execution of the suit pronote and his alleged signature on the suit pronote and filed I.A.No.660 of 2005 for sending the suit pronote to a Handwriting Expert along with his admitted signatures. That application was allowed and the documents were sent to the Government Handwriting Expert, Hyderabad. The Expert proffered his opinion that the signature of the 1st defendant on the suit pronote was genuine; as regards the signature of the 2nd defendant he requires the signature of this defendant of the year 2000 so as to scientifically compare the signatures on the disputed signatures of the 2nd defendant on the suit pronote with contemporaneous signatures of the period of execution of the pronote. The 2nd defendant filed a memo dated 28-03-2006 requesting the court to again send his admitted signatures along with the disputed signatures to the Handwriting Expert, Government of A.P, Hyderabad. The court below sent the disputed signatures and the admitted signatures (on a sale deed dated 04-04-2001) to a private Handwriting Expert, Sri Ashok Kashyap, who submitted his opinion to the Court. While the suit was posted to 06-12-2006 for examination of the Expert, the revision petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A.No.1408 of 2006 claiming that his newly engaged Advocate had advised that the suit pronote should be sent to the Government Handwriting Expert only along with the additional signatures so as to compare the same with the disputed signatures of defendant No.2 on the suit pronote, for arriving at a proper conclusion. The court below rejected this contention of the plaintiff holding that pursuant to an order in I.A.No.660 of 2005 by the 2nd defendant, which was allowed on 28-07-05 the disputed signatures on Exs.B-1 and B-2 namely vakalat and written statement filed by the 2nd respondent were sent to the Government Expert on 25-05- 2002 and the 2nd respondent had also furnished the bills submitted by him to the Grampanchayat containing signatures on the counter-foils of the cheques issued to him. Later, the handwriting Expert was also examined on 06-12-2006 but he could not be cross examined by the plaintiff and the cross examination was closed on 18-12-2006. The new counsel of the plaintiff has contrived this objection to protract the trial of the suit, which is a money suit, pending since 2003. The court below also held that the documents, which are sought to be sent for comparison are not relevant to the suit and dismissed the application. It must be noticed that on a memo filed by the 2nd defendant, subsequent to a request of the Government Handwriting Expert for contemporaneous signatures of the 2nd defendant, the court had sent the disputed signatures on the suit pronote along with the relevant admitted signatures of the 2nd defendant to a private handwriting expert and his report was also received. The proper course for the petitioner/plaintiff is to cross- examine the Expert to elicit any errors in the opinion of the expert and not to seek referral of the disputed signatures to another handwriting Expert. The determination of the 2n d defendant’s claim and the dispute as his signatures on the suit pronote cannot be a subject matter of interminable proceedings for successive expert opinions on disputed documents/signatures, ad infinitum. For the aforesaid reasons, this court discerns no infirmity or perversity in the conclusion of the court below in rejecting I.A.No.148 of 2006 in O.S.No.28 of 2003. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 17th JUNE 2010 TSNR