IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.1689 OF 2007 Between:- Shaik Vali …Petitioner A n d Bonthapuri Kristudasu …Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.1689 OF 2007 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 31-01-2007 in I.A.No.32 of 2007 in O.S.No.1151 of 2006, on the file of the II Additional Junior Judge, Guntur, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for a direction to send the disputed promissory note to the Government handwriting expert or any other expert for comparison and opinion, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the records. 3. The respondent herein filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.49,800/- said to be due under a pronote alleged to have been executed by the petitioner herein. The petitioner filed a written statement contending that the suit promissory note is forged. The petitioner filed I.A.No.32 of 2007 praying that the suit promissory note may be sent to the Government handwriting expert for comparison of the signature. The said application was dismissed on the ground that there were no admitted signatures of the defendant made available. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the signatures on the vakalath and written statement may be taken as admitted signatures and the disputed promissory note may be sent along with vakalath and written statement. According to the defendant, the suit is filed on the basis of a forged promissory note. When once the defendant is questioning the genuineness of the signature on the suit promissory note and taken the defence that the suit pronote is a forged one, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, there is every possibility of the defendant disguising the signatures while signing the vakalath and written statement, which are filed subsequent to filing of this suit. The purpose of sending the disputed document to an expert for opinion would be best served only when the disputed signature is compared with the admitted signatures of the same person contained on documents of contemporaneous nature. In the absence of availability of any such contemporaneous document containing the admitted signatures of the defendant, no useful purpose would be served by sending the document to an expert except resulting in loss of time and incurring of avoidable expenditure. In the absence of any contemporaneous signature of the defendant, the trial Court had rightly exercised the discretion in refusing to send the suit document to the expert. The impugned order does not, therefore, call for any interference. 5. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim stay granted on 20-04-2007 stands vacated. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 29th June, 2010. Lrkm.