HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Dated 05-12-2009 C.R.P.No.5525 OF 2009 Between: Pottemgari Sayareddy. …Petitioner. And: Arla Sayareddy ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.R.P.No.5525 OF 2009 ORDER: This C.R.P. is filed aggrieved by the order dated 28- 10-2009 in I.A.No.396 of 2009 in O.S.No.53 of 2007 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan. Petitioner herein is the 1st defendant and respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.53 of 2007. The status of the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the Court below for the sake of convenience. Originally, the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.53 of 2007 against the 1st defendant and another, for recovery of money to a tune of Rs.4,57,300/- basing on the alleged promissory note. During the pendency of the suit in question, the application in I.A.No.396 of 2009 in O.S.No.53 of 2007 has been filed by the 1st defendant seeking to send Ex.A.1 original suit pronote dated 6- 2-2006 and Written Statement filed by the 1st defendant and also vakalat executed by the 1st defendant in favour of his Advocate and also the specimen signatures of the 1st defendant which was obtained in open Court, to the Hand Writing Expert of Nagapur for analysis and comparison of the signatures of the 1st defendant available on his Written Statement and vakalat executed by his Advocate and specimen signature to be obtained in open Court with his alleged signature available on the revenue stamp paper affixed on Ex.A.1 pronote dated 6-2-2006 and obtain the report. The Court below having observed that the application has been filed at a belated stage only for dragging the matter on one pretext or the other, dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the present C.R.P. is filed by the 1st defendant. Heard the learned Counsel for the 1st defendant and the plaintiff. Learned Counsel for the 1st defendant submits that the trial Court had not given any reasons as to why the disputed document Ex.A.1 should not be sent to the hand writing expert to ascertain as to whether the signature on the revenue stamps is genuine or forged. Hence, the Court below erred in passing the order impugned. Therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, he relied on a decision reported in GURU GOVINDU v. DEVARAPU VENKATARAMANA ([1]). On the other hand, the learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that when the 1st defendant himself admitted that he executed Ex.A.1 suit pronote in his own handwriting, the question of forgery of his signature does not arise. He further submits that only to drag on the proceedings, the 1st defendant filed the present application at a belated stage. Hence, the order impugned needs no interference by this Court. Perused the material available on record. The suit is filed for recovery of money. The present application has been filed by the 1st defendant seeking to send certain documents for an expert opinion and the same was dismissed by the Court below. Aggrieved by which, he preferred the present revision. There is no dispute that the application seeking to send the disputed document to expert can be filed even at the time of arguments. But facts and circumstances have to be considered while entertaining such an application. In the present case, the 1st defendant admitted his signature on Ex.A.1 pronote and he is only disputing the alleged signature available on revenue stamp pasted on Ex.A.1 pronote. Under Section 73, as found by the Court below, the Court is vested with power to compare the disputed signature with admitted signature. Further in the present case, the Court below has already framed an issue with regard to forgery. In these circumstances, I do not find any justification to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the C.R.P. is dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice G.CHANDRAIAH Dated 5-12-2009 Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.R.P.No.5525 OF 2009 Dated 05-12-2009 [1] 2006 (4) ALD 333