HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3090 OF 2010 Friday, the Twenty Third day of July, Two Thousand and Ten Between G.Madan Mohan Petitioner AND Narender Singh and another Respondents ORAL ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 1810 of 2009 aggrieved by the order dated 6.5.2010 passed in I.A. No. 792 of 2009 by the learned XIX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, allowing the petition filed under Order 26 Rule 10(A) read with Sec.45 of the Evidence Act to send the lease deed dated 1.11.2005 to the State Forensic Laboratory for comparison of signature of the first respondent herein with his admitted signatures. The defendants filed the above petition to send the lease deed dated 1.11.2005 read with Sec. 45 of the Evidence Act to the State Forensic Laboratory for comparison of the admitted signatures of the first defendant on Vakalath, Written Statement and counter. It is the specific case of the defendants that the plaintiff has forged his signature on the lease deed. Whereas, it is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants may be in the habits of making different signatures at different times and that they have not filed any admitted signatures for the purpose of comparison. It is also contended that the evidence of an Expert is not the conclusive proof inasmuch as it is weak piece of evidence. The court below, by the order impugned has allowed the application. Aggrieved thereby the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. As can be seen from the order impugned, if the lease deed is sent to the State Forensic Laboratory, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner. Having gone though the order impugned, I am of the considered view that for an effective disposal of the suit, it is just and proper to send the lease deed dated 1.11.2005 to the State Laboratory for comparison of the signature of the first defendant with that of his admitted signatures. Having gone through the entire material available on record, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned warranting interference. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari July 23, 2010 MAS