HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4507 OF 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner – defendant against the order dated 10-02-2006 in I.A. No.316 of 2010 in O.S. No.141 of 2008 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Yellamnchili. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they arrayed in the suit. 3. Plaintiff filed O.S. No.141 of 2008 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili, against the defendant for recovery of certain amount on the basis of the promissory note dated 10-02-2006. Petitioner filed I.A. 316 of 2010 under Section 45 of the Evidence Act (for short ‘the Act’), with a prayer to send the suit promissory note to the handwriting expert for comparison of his signature on the promissory note and for the expert’s opinion, mainly contending that the promissory note is a forged and fabricated one, as he is in the habit of putting his signature in English only and the signature on the promissory note is in Telugu. 3. The trial Court dismissed the impugned application vide impugned order, observing that sending of the document in question to the expert would not be helpful to him. Aggrieved of the same, the petitioner filed this revision. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner – defendant. 5. The suit is filed for recovery of money on the basis of the promissory note in question. Petitioner filed the impugned application under Section 45 of the Act, seeking to send the suit promissory note to the expert for comparison of the disputed signature. 6. Petitioner contends that the signature on the promissory note is in Telugu and that he never signs in Telugu. The trial Court after hearing the counsel for both sides dismissed the impugned application, observing that even if the document is sent to the handwriting expert, it would not be helpful in ay way to the petitioner, since he is in the habit of signing only in English and the disputed signature which is in Telugu cannot be compared with. As rightly held by the trial Court, if the promissory note in question is sent to the handwriting expert, he cannot compare the disputed signature with the admitted signature of the petitioner, as he never signs in Telugu. Hence, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application. I do not find any infirmity or illegality to interfere with the order of the trial Court. However, the trial Court itself can decide the issue of forgery and fabrication of promissory note in question by using its wisdom. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. October 22, 2010. KTL