THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2877 of 2008 ORDER: 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 04.04.2008 in I.A. No.117 of 2008 in O.S. No.22 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Addanki. 2. The petitioner herein, who is defendant, filed the petition under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to send the suit promissory note to hand-writing expert for comparison of his signature therein with the admitted signatures and opinion. The said petition was dismissed by the impugned order, holding that the court can as well compare the disputed signature of the petitioner with that of the admitted signatures in Exs.B1 and B2. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that from the beginning, it is the case of the petitioner/defendant that the signature on Ex.A1- promissory note is forged and to that effect necessary evidence was also let in and therefore Ex.A1 ought to have been sent to the expert for comparison of the signature therein with that of the admitted signatures. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the court can as well compare the disputed signature with that of the disputed signatures as per Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and after considering the material on record, the trial Court dismissed the application and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 5. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money basing on Ex.A1-promissory note. A plea has been taken by the petitioner herein, who is defendant, that the suit promissory note is a forged one. The plea is not a belated one. In the first instance, he stated in his written statement that he has not signed on the suit promissory note and his case is that it is a rank forgery. Necessary evidence was also let in, to that effect. The respondent filed counter in the I.A. contending that opinion of the hand writing expert is not conclusive in the matter of hand- writing, yet he had no objection to send Ex.A1-promissory note to the expert for comparison and opinion with regard to the disputed signature. Such is the case, the trial Court ought to have sent Ex.A1-promissory note to the expert along with Exs.B1 and B2 for comparison and report. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 6. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, allowed, consequently, I.A. No.117 of 2008 in O.S. No.22 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Addanki stands allowed. No costs. --------------------- 23.9.2010 (K.C.Bhanu, J.) DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2877 of 2008 23.09.2010 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2877 of 2008 23.09.2010 Between: K.Chenchuramaiah …Petitioner And Makineni Musalaiah @ Peraiah …Respondent