THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY C.R.P.No.2364 of 2010 Date:27.07.2010 Between: Pitta Shyam Sunder Reddy. ……..Petitioner/defendant. And T.Venkaiah @ Kummari Venkulu. …… Respondent/plaintiff. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY C.R.P.No.2364 of 2010 ORDER: 1. This revision is directed against the order dated 16.2.2009 passed in I.A.No.10 of 2009 in O.S.No.218 of 2005 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Nalgonda, whereby and whereunder the learned Junior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed under Order XVI, Rules 1, 5, 6, 10 & 21 read with Section 151 CPC & Rule 129 of Civil Rules of Practice. 2. The petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.218 of 2005. The petitioner/defendant took the plea that the suit promissory note dated 20.5.2004 is a rank of forgery. He sought the admitted signatures of him appearing on the cheque dated 13.1.2004 for Rs.1,00,000/- to be compared with the signatures appearing on the pronote to substantiate his contention that the signature appearing in the pronote is not of him. He filed I.A.No.10 of 2009 seeking the following relief:- “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Manager, State Bank of India, Nalgonda Main Branch to attend this Hon'ble Court along with the documents shown below, in the interest of justice.” 3. The respondent/plaintiff reported no counter. 4. The learned Junior Civil Judge proceeded to dismiss the petition on the ground that the Court has power to send a document to the Handing Writing Expert, only if it is already presented to Court whether it is marked as an exhibit or not and not by summoning a document from another suit. 5. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 15.6.2010. Despite notice being served on the respondent, he did not choose to enter appearance. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant and perused the order impugned in the revision. 7. The learned trial Court sought to rely on the judgment of this Court in Mir Kahairuddhin Vs. K.Somireddy and others[1], wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court held that the Court has power to send a document to the Handwriting Expert, only if it is already presented to Court whether marked as exhibit or not and not by summoning a document from another suit. 8. In the cited case, the party therein wanted to send two documents from another suit to the Handwriting Expert for comparison. Therefore, the cited case has no application to the facts of the present case. 9. The petitioner/defendant filed the application being I.A.No.10 of 2009 to summon the cheque issued by him on 13.1.2004 and withdrawal forms dated 15.4.2004 & 22.12.2004 so as to enable the Handwriting Expert to compare the signatures appearing thereon with the disputed signatures appearing on the suit pro-note. Indeed, the respondent/plaintiff reported no counter for the said application before the trial Court. 10. Such is the situation, there cannot be any impedement for summoning the cheque leaf for Rs.1,00,000/- dated 13.1.2004, withdrawal forms dated 15.4.2004 & 22.12.2004 for the purpose of comparison of the signatures appearing thereon with the disputed signatures on the suit pro-note. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 16.2.2009 and consequently, the I.A.No.10 of 2009 stands allowed. No order as to costs. _______________________________________ JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Date:27.7.2010 mrb [1] 2006 (5) ALT 224