THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Civil Revision Petition Nos. 4223 & 4225 of 2010 Dated: 22.03.2011 Between: Kambampati Jyothi, West Godavari District and 3 others … Petitioners And Seemakurti Naga Venkata Subba Rao, West Godeavari District. … Respondent THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI Civil Revision Petition Nos. 4223 & 4225 of 2010 COMMON ORDER : The revision petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.169 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, West Godavari District. The respondent herein is the plaintiff and the suit is filed for recovery of money on the basis of a promissory note allegedly executed by one Kambhampati Vikram, the husband of the 1st defendant. The defendants 2 and 3 are the children of the said Vikram, whereas the defendant No.4 is his mother. The suit was contested by the defendants contending inter alia that the signatures of late Kambhampati Vikram were forged on the suit promissory note. After the commencement of trial, the defendants filed I.A.No.692 of 2010 under Section 45 of the Evidence Act with a prayer to send the suit promissory note to the Government hand writing expert for comparison of the signatures thereon with the admitted signatures of late Kambhampati Vikram on a loan application made by him before the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society, Mokhasa in loan account No.2283. Similarly, the defendants also filed I.A.No.691 of 2010 under Order XVI Rule 1 of C.P.C. to summon Secretary of the Primary Agricultural Society, Mokhasa to cause production of loan register bearing loan account No.2283. The applications were opposed by the plaintiff contending that he was not aware of the crop loan said to have been availed by the deceased Kambhampati Vikram form Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society of Mokhasa, Narasannapalem of Nuzvid Mandal. After hearing both the parties, the Court below by separate orders dated 06.08.2010 dismissed I.A.Nos.691 and 692 of 2010 holding that since the suit is for recovery of money based on a promissory note, it is for the plaintiff to prove due execution of the promissory note by the deceased Kambhampati Vikram and therefore, there is no need for expert opinion. Aggrieved by the said orders made in I.A.Nos.691 and 692 of 2010, the present C.R.P.Nos.4225 and 4223 of 2010 respectively are filed. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. It is to be noted that the suit promissory note was allegedly executed by Kambhampati Vikram, who is no more. The defendants are only his legal representatives, who cannot be attributed knowledge of the suit transaction. It is also relevant to note that in the written statement itself, it was pleaded by the defendants that the signatures of late Kambhampati Vikram were forged on the suit promissory note and it is not as if the defendants have come up with such a plea for the first time for the purpose of the present applications. Moreover whereas the suit promissory note was allegedly executed in the year 2003, according to the revision petitioners/defendants, the deceased Kambhampati Vikram availed the loan from the Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Mokhasa in the year 2003 and the loan application contained his admitted signatures of the year 2003. Thus the signatures relied upon by the defendants are of the contemporary period. Though the expert opinion is not conclusive, undoubtedly, it would assist the Court to exercise the powers under Section 73 of the Evidence Act and to arrive at a proper conclusion while deciding the suit. It is true that the suit is of the year 2008, however, since the trial is still going on, it cannot be said that any prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff by allowing the applications. For the aforesaid reasons, the Court below is not justified in dismissing the Applications. Hence the orders under Revision are hereby set aside. In the result, both I.A.Nos.691 and 692 of 2010 are hereby allowed and the Court below is directed to summon the Secretary, Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Mokhasa Narasannapalem of Nuzzvid Mandal for production of loan register. After receiving the said register the suit promissory note should be sent for the opinion of a Government hand writing expert on comparison of the signatures on Ex.A-1 promissory note with the admitted signatures on the loan application in Loan Account No.2283. There shall also be a direction to the Court below to dispose of the suit following due process of law expeditiously. Both the Civil Revision Petitions are accordingly allowed. No costs. _______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 22.03.2011 KLP