IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. NO :5376 of 2009 Between: Chekuru Anjaneya Raju ..... PETITIONER AND Dr. S. Rajamouli. .....RESPONDENT The Court made the following : HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:5376 OF 2009 ORDER: Aggrieved by order, dated 9.10.2009 in I.A.No.259 of 2009 in O.S.No.1913 of 2007 passed by the learned VI Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, the present revision petition has been filed. The petitioner herein is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff before the Court below. For the sake of convenience, the status of the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the suit. Originally, the plaintiff filed the above suit for recovery of money against the defendant. The defendant filed the above application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking to send the documents i.e., plaint, amended plaint, chief affidavit and cross- examination of P.W.1, which contain the signatures of the plaintiff, and Ex.A1, Ex.A7, Exs.B1 to B7 and the other documents filed by the defendant to the handwriting expert. The Court below having observed that the documents viz., plaint, amended plaint, chief affidavit and cross examination of P.W.1, which contain the signatures of the plaintiff, need not be sent to the expert, as his signature is not in dispute and that the disputed signature of the defendant is in English and the documents, which are sought to be sent for handwriting expert for comparison with that of Ex.A1, contain the signature of the defendant in Telugu, and therefore, even if the documents in question are sent to the handwriting expert, no useful purpose will be served, dismissed the application. Having aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available on record. On a perusal of the material available on record and the order under revision, it is apparent that the signature of the defendant on Ex.A1 is in English whereas the documents, which are sought to be sent to the handwriting expert for comparison with that of Ex.A1, contain the signatures of the defendant in Telugu. Therefore, even if the documents in question were sent for comparison, no purpose would be served as rightly observed by the Court below. Insofar as the other documents viz., plaint, amended plaint, chief affidavit and cross-examination of P.W.1 are concerned, they contain the signatures of the plaintiff. There is no dispute as to the signature of the plaintiff and therefore, the expert opinion is unwarranted. Under the above circumstances, I feel that the order of the Court below does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court and hence, the revision is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. However, the Court below is directed to dispose of the suit, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. _________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari Date: 13th November, 2009 Nn. HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:5376 OF 2009 13.11.2009