THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.2002 of 2010 ORDER: The respondent filed O.S.No.1108 of 2009 in the Court of X Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the petitioner for recovery of amount on the strength of a promissory note, dated 15.07.2006. The petitioner denied the allegation that he borrowed the amount and executed promissory note and receipt. The trial of the suit commenced. After the evidence on behalf of the respondent was concluded, the petitioner filed I.A.No.259 of 2010 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act (for short ‘the Act’) with a prayer to send the promissory note marked as Ex.A.1 for comparison to the Government Forensic Science Laboratory. The application was resisted by the respondent. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through order dated 13.04.2010. Hence, this civil revision petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. The petitioner denied the allegation of the respondent that he executed the promissory note. During the course of examination of P.W.1 also, a clear suggestion was made to the effect that the signature on Ex.A.1 is not that of the petitioner herein. Thereafter, the application was filed under Section 45 of the Act. The trial Court placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court in Neelakantappa vs. M.Munirathanam[1] and Renu Devi Kedia vs. Seetha Devi[2] and rejected the application. The first judgment referred to above is in relation to the stage, at which the application is to be filed. It was clearly mentioned in the said judgment that an application under Section 45 of the Act must be filed before the party, who disputes the signature on the document, is examined in chief and cross-examined. There is no dispute in this case that the petitioner is yet to be examined as a witness. The second judgment is in relation to reliability of the signatures on the vakalat and written statement. Even if that principle is applied, the trail Court can obtain the signatures of the petitioner herein in the open Court and send the specimens thereof to the hand writing expert along with Ex.A.1 and receipt, if that is also marked. Viewed from any angle, the order under revision cannot be sustained. Therefore, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. Consequently, the I.A. is allowed and the trial Court shall send Ex.A.1 along with the specimen signatures of the petitioner, that may be taken in the Court, for comparison to the Forensic Science Laboratory. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 13.08.2010 JSU THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.2002 of 2010 Date: 13.08.2010 JSU [1] 2005(1) ALD (Crl.) 161 [2] 2004(6) ALT 429