THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.Nos.3200, 3202, 3203 & 3204 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: These revisions are between the same parties and arise out of the same suit. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order. The respondent filed O.S.No.91 of 2008 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chirala against the petitioner for recovery of an amount on the strength of promissory note. The petitioner pleaded that he borrowed a sum of Rs.30,000/- from the respondent, and as security for repayment of the loan, the respondent took two blank promissory notes, and two promissory notes, which were filled in all respects, but leaving the date, blank. According to him, when he paid the amount with interest, the respondent returned the promissory notes, that were filled, except as regards date, but did not return two other blank promissory notes, and that the same were utilized in filing the suit. The trial of the suit commenced and recording of evidence of the petitioner is in progress. The petitioner filed a bunch of applications, viz., I.A.Nos.952, 988, 989 and 1016 of 2011 for the reliefs of a) permitting him to submit his admitted writings for the purpose of comparison, b) to send the alleged suit promissory note dated 15-05-2005, to the A.P. Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad for comparison, c) to recall him for the purpose of marking documents and d) to permit him to file the list of documents, comprising of, unfilled blank promissory note executed by him and the filled promissory note, for Rs.30,000/-. The applications were opposed by the respondent. Through separate orders dated 03- 08-2011, the trial Court dismissed the applications. Hence, these four revisions. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Though the respondent is served with the notice, he has not chosen to enter appearance. The effort of the petitioner in filing the said applications was, to prove that the respondent had taken certain blank and some filled promissory notes, when the petitioner borrowed Rs.30,000/-, and returned only part of them, when the amount was repaid. If what is pleaded by the petitioner is true, it would certainly have a direct bearing upon the merits of the suit. A comparison by an expert agency of the signatures or writings would certainly be helpful to the Court in arriving at a just and proper conclusion. The respondent has an ample opportunity to put forward his case. This Court is of the view that the petitioner deserves to be given an opportunity to prove his case. Hence, the revisions are allowed, and the orders passed in the respective revisions are set aside. Consequently, the applications filed by the petitioner, viz., I.A.Nos. 952, 988, 989 and 1016 of 2011 are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.23-09-2011 KO