IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.597 OF 2010 Between:- Patath Subrahmanyam …Petitioner A n d B.Indira Reddi …Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.597 OF 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 05-02-2010 in I.A.No.1072 of 2009 in O.S.No.22 of 2004, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein, the plaintiff, under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act and under Order 26 Rule 10(A) & 12(2) of the C.P.C, praying to send the disputed document along with signatures of the defendant obtained in the open Court to handwriting expert, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the records. 3. It is not disputed that previously the defendant filed a petition I.A.No.723 of 2004 requesting that the two pronotes may be sent to the Government handwriting expert for comparison of the disputed signatures with the signatures of the defendant available on the vakalath and written statement. The said petition was allowed and the disputed documents were sent to the A.P. Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad along with vakalath and written statement. The report of the Forensic Science expert was also received. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed the present application for a direction to send the disputed document to another expert along with subsequent signatures of the defendant after obtaining the same in open Court. The plaintiff contends that the signatures appearing on vakalath and written statement cannot be treated as admitted signatures as they were not appended in the presence of the Court. The plaintiff has specifically alleged that subsequent to execution of the suit pronotes, the defendant changed his style of signing and on that ground, he disputes the genuineness of the signatures appearing on vakalath and written statement. When that is so, even the subsequent signatures that may be obtained in open Court cannot be taken as standard signatures for the purpose of comparison, as there is every possibility of the defendant disguising his original signature in view of the specific allegation of the plaintiff himself that subsequent to execution of suit pronotes, the defendant has changed the style and pattern of his signature. The intended purpose behind sending the disputed document to the handwriting expert for comparison and opinion would be best served if only the documents containing admitted signatures which are of contemporaneous nature are sent along with the disputed document. Sending the disputed document once again to the handwriting expert with any subsequent signatures that may be obtained in open Court will not, therefore, serve the real purpose in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 4. The impugned order refusing to send the disputed signatures to the handwriting expert, as prayed for does not, therefore, call for any interference. The plaintiff is, however, at liberty to approach the trial Court and make fresh request in the event of any admitted signatures contained on documents of contemporaneous nature are available and produced before the Court, which can be treated as standard signatures. 5. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 29th June, 2010. Lrkm.