IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3806 of 2006 BETWEEN: Guntapalli Bullaiah. ... PETITIONER AND Gunapalli Parvathi and another. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. K.S. MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents: MR. N. SRIRAM MURTHY MR. M. SRINIVASA RAO The Court made the following: ORDER: This revision is directed against the order of the Court below in E.A.No.421 of 2005 in E.P.No.128 of 2002 in O.S.No.2 of 2002 dated 07.03.2006 refusing to accede to the request of the judgment debtor to sent Ex.X1 (affidavit of judgment debtor) for comparison by an expert. 2. The aforesaid application came to be filed by the petitioner herein, primarily, on the ground that he never admitted Ex.X1 nor the signature appears to be his on Ex.X1. He, therefore, sought to send the said document for comparison by handwriting expert and according to him truth will come out once expert gives the opinion. The said application was rejected by the trial Court on the ground that firstly, Ex.X1 is a notarized affidavit and even otherwise, the petitioner has already executed Ex.A3 – Gift Deed, in favour of his son. The said gift deed is being claimed by the petitioner as fraudulent and not binding. The Court below, therefore, held that even if Ex.X1 is sent for expert comparison or not, Ex.A3 is already on record where the signatures of petitioner is available and no purpose, therefore, would be served in sending Ex.X1 for comparison by expert. The said order is question in this revision. 3. I have heard Mr. K.S. Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. Sriram Murthy, learned counsel for the respondent. 4. I have perused the record including copy of Ex.X1 affidavit. I am not able to see any error committed by the Court below in rejecting the said request of the petitioner inasmuch as Ex.A3 registered gift deed is already available on record and Ex.X1 by itself would not make any difference and as such, sending the said document to handwriting expert was not felt necessary by the trial Court. In any case, the trial Court can exercise powers under Section 73 of the Evidence Act. The impugned order, therefore, is within the jurisdiction of the Court below and the discretion exercised being not perverse; the same is not liable for interference. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J August 3, 2010 DSK