THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3473 OF 2011 02.09.2011 Between: Boddu Veera Venkata Satyanarayana …Petitioner AND Danthuluri Venkateswara Raju …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3473 OF 2011 ORDER: The respondent’s suit being O.S.No.85 of 2008 for recovery of amount based on a promissory note dated 07.08.2006 at the ripe stage of the trial. The suit promissory note is already marked as Ex.A.1. At this stage, the petitioner filed I.A.No.174 of 2011 purportedly under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to send the suit promissory note to an expert for comparison of the signature on the promissory note with the admitted signature. The same has been dismissed. Aggrieved by which, the present civil revision petition is filed. This Court heard the counsel for petitioner and does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. While dismissing the application, the learned trial Judge observed as follows. The suit pronote is already marked as Ex.A-1. A perusal of Ex.A-1 appears that it was executed in the year 2006. But so far the petitioner/defendant did not produce any of his admitted contemporary period of signatures i.e., signatures of the year, 2006 or so, so as to send the same along with Ex.A-1 to the hand writing expert for comparison. In view of settled proposition of law, even if suit pronote is sent to the hand writing expert at this stage without therebeing any admitted signatures of contemporary period, no purpose will be served. In such a case, I feel that absolutely there are no grounds to consider the request of the petitioner. Moreover, under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Court has got power to compare the disputed and admitted signatures. The above reasoning is sound and does not warrant any interference. The civil revision petition is therefore dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 02.09.2011 Pln