THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.R.P.No.6083 of 2009 ORDER: The respondent herein filed O.S.No.934 of 2008 on the file of VI Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, against the petitioner herein and her husband, for recovery of money on the basis of a promissory note. In the said suit, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1315 of 2009 under Section 45 of the Evidence Act seeking to refer the signatures on the promissory note-Ex.A1 to the Government expert for the purpose of examination. Through the Order, dated 19.10.2009, the said application was dismissed by the trial Court holding that since the petitioner and her husband have not taken a plea of forgery and they stated in their written statement that they signed on blank papers in the police station due to threat and coercion, there is no necessity to refer Ex.A1- promissory note to the Government expert. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that when the petitioner and her husband have stated in the counter affidavit that their signatures were obtained on blank papers by force in the police station, there is no necessity to send their signatures on Ex.A1-promissory note to the handwriting expert. 4. From a perusal of the material on record, it is evident that the petitioner and her husband had not taken the plea as regards forgery of signatures on Ex.A.1 either in the reply notice or in the written statement, and stated that their signatures were obtained on blank promissory note by force in the police station. Nonetheless, the burden is on them to prove the same. If the Court feels appropriate for sending the disputed signatures to the handwriting expert on an application submitted by the parties, it will choose to do so. In the absence of any specific plea by the petitioner, there is no necessity to refer Ex.A1-promissory note to the expert for analysis, as rightly observed by the Court below. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the civil revision petition warranting interference by this Court. 5. The civil revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 05.02.2010 sj