IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.1757 OF 2009 Between: Guntoju Damodar …Petitioner A n d Allemula Papi Reddy and another ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.1757 OF 2009 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 26.03.2009 in I.A.No.195 of 2009 in O.S.No.14 of 2007, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda, wherein the said application filed the petitioner herein (D-1) under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for sending the suit pronote to the handwriting expert FSL, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. The first respondent herein filed the suit for recovery of certain amount allegedly due under a suit pronote from petitioner/D-1. The petitioner/D-1 filed a written statement denying the liability. The signature of the petitioner/D-1 on the suit pronote is, however, not disputed. The petitioner, however, pleaded that the contents of the promissory note were not filled by him. During the course of evidence, it is stated that P.W.1 has stated that the contents of the pronote were, in fact, filled by the petitioner/D-1. The petitioner, therefore, seeks to send the suit pronote to the handwriting expert for comparison of the handwriting contained in the suit pronote with his admitted handwriting in order to show that the contents were not filled by him. Inasmuch as the execution of the suit pronote is admitted by the petitioner/D-1, sending of the document to the handwriting expert for the purpose prayed for, is not called for. As rightly observed by the trial Court, the contents of the pronote can be filled by anyone. When once the signature of the petitioner/D-1, as executant on the suit pronote, is admitted, it is not necessary to send the suit pronote to handwriting expert for the purpose of ascertaining whether the contents were in handwriting of petitioner/D-1 or not. The impugned order, dismissing the application, does not call for any interference. 4. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 24th June, 2011 Lrkm