THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3029 OF 2011 18.08.2011 Between: Patta Venkata Rao …Petitioner AND Datla Venkata Satyanarayana Raju …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3029 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is defendant in O.S.No.643 of 2008. The suit was filed by the respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- based on a promissory note dated 10.12.2005. The petitioner is contesting the suit denying execution of promissory note. Earlier, he filed I.A.No.273 of 2009 praying the Court to send the suit promissory note to handwriting expert, and the same was ordered. When the promissory note was sent to the handwriting expert, he expressed inability to give opinion for want of contemporaneous signatures even though the petitioner submitted a registered sale deed, which stands in the name of his sister-in-law, in which he was first attestor. The petitioner filed yet another I.A.No.793 in 2010 for similar relief. The Court observed that when the promissory note was executed on 10.12.2005 and when the handwriting expert was not able to give opinion for want of contemporaneous signatures, it would not be possible to give opinion with reference to the signatures of the petitioner on the written statement and Vakalat. The application was accordingly dismissed. In this civil revision petition, the counsel for petitioner relies on Budumuru Vijayanand v Potnuru Bhagyalakshmi[1] and Chenga Chinna Reddaiah v Shaik Khalander[2], and submits that even if contemporaneous signatures are not available, the disputed signatures can be sent to handwriting expert. There is no dispute that the request of the petitioner was considered earlier in I.A.No.273 of 2009 and the document with disputed signatures was sent to handwriting expert. He could not give opinion for want of contemporaneous signatures. In the absence of any contemporaneous signatures, repeatedly the promissory note cannot be sent to the handwriting expert. In that view of the matter, the impugned order does not suffer from any grave error apparent on the face of record. The civil revision petition is therefore dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 18.08.2011 Pln [1] 2004 (6) ALT 813 [2] 2009 (3) ALT 653