THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.5012 of 2009 ORDER: The respondent herein filed O.S.No.40 of 2008 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki, against the 1st petitioner, for recovery of amount, on the strength of a promissory note, dated 10.08.2005. The latter disputed the execution of the promissory note. The 1st petitioner filed I.A.No.417 of 2009 under Sections 45 and 73 of the Evidence Act, with a request to send the disputed promissory note for examination by a Government Handwriting Expert, to verify whether the document was scribed by the person whose name was mentioned in the document as the scribe. The application was opposed by the respondent. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through order, dated 09.09.2009. Hence, the 1st petitioner filed the C.R.P. During the pendency of the revision, he died and his legal representatives are brought on record as petitioners 2 to 4. Sri M.S.N.Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the effort of the petitioners is to establish that the document was not written by the person mentioned in the document as a scribe, and if that fact is proved, it would go a very long way to help the trial Court in arriving at a just and proper conclusion. He contends that the application ought to have been allowed. Sri I.Koti Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the issue in the suit would be as to whether the deceased-1st petitioner has borrowed the amount and executed the promissory note and that the prayer in the I.A. is totally outside the purview of the suit. As observed earlier, the suit was filed for recovery of the amount, on the strength of a promissory note dated 10.08.2005. The 1st petitioner denied the execution of the same. Basically, it is for the respondent to prove the execution of the document. Since there is a denial on the part of the 1st petitioner, steps could certainly have been taken under Section 45 of the Evidence Act to get the signature/thumb impression on the promissory note, compared with his undisputed signature/thumb impression. In stead, he has chosen to request the Court to send the disputed promissory note for examination of the handwriting of the scribe. Any effort in a suit must be aimed at getting an answer to the issues framed or involved in the suit. The main issue in the present case would be as to whether the 1st petitioner executed the promissory note. Even if it is proved by the petitioners, that the document was not written by the scribe named in the document, it would not have any direct bearing upon the issue, more so, if the respondent establishes that the 1st petitioner had signed or put his thumb impression. The trial Court has pointed out the same and dismissed the I.A. Even now, the petitioners can take necessary steps to establish that the 1st petitioner did not sign or put his thumb impression on the document. The C.R.P. is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dated: 24.06.2011 GJ