THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 883 OF 2011 ORDER : 1. The Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 09.02.2011 in I.A. No.607 of 2010 in O.S. No.142 of 2009 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur, whereunder and whereby the application filed by the petitioner/defendant under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, ‘the Act’) to send Ex.A1-suit promissory note to expert for comparison of signatures thereon with his admitted signatures, was dismissed on the ground that the burden is on the respondent/plaintiff to establish the signatures of the defendant on the promissory note and that the court can as well compare the disputed signatures with that of the admitted signatures under Section 73 of the Act. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant contended that since the petitioner/defendant has taken a specific plea in the suit that he had not signed on Ex.A1- suit promissory note and his signatures were forged by the respondent/plaintiff, the burden is on him to establish the same, and so the signatures on the suit promissory note have to be compared by an expert with his admitted signatures so that the truth will come out, and hence, he prays to allow the revision. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff contended that the dispute is between brothers and that scribe and attestor were examined, and hence the trial court rightly dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner and it needs no interference by this Court. 4. The respondent/plaintiff filed Original Suit No.142 of 2009 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur for recovery of money basing on a promissory n o te . A specific plea has been taken by the petitioner/defendant stating that signatures on Ex.A1-suit promissory note were forged. There is no dispute that the initial burden is on the respondent/plaintiff to establish that the promissory note was executed by the petitioner/defendant, but, at the same time, because the petitioner/defendant has taken a specific plea of forgery, necessarily, burden is on him to establish the same by adducing necessary evidence. For that reason, he filed the petition to send the disputed document to an expert for comparison, but, the same was dismissed by the trial court by the impugned order. No doubt, the court can compare the disputed signatures on Ex.A1 with that of the admitted signatures as provided under Section 73 of the Act, but, at the same time, the court cannot take the role of an expert in comparison of the disputed and admitted signatures. These aspects have not been considered by the trial court in right perspective. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order, and consequently, I.A. No.607 of 2010 in O.S. No.142 of 2009 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur stands allowed. No costs. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 15.6.2011 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 883 OF 2011 15.6.2011 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 883 OF 2011 15.6.2011 Between: Mamilla Shankaraiah …Petitioner And Mamilla Rangaiah …Respondent