THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4048 OF 2008 ORDER: Petitioner is defendant in O.S.No.539 of 2000. Same was filed by respondent for recovery of Rs.14,326.55 (Rupees fourteen thousand three hundred and twenty six and paise fifty five only) based on katha and a credit bill allegedly endorsed by petitioner. Petitioner is opposing suit on ground that signature on credit bill is forged and that he is not liable to pay suit amont. In 2003, he filed I.A.No.1209 of 2003 praying the Court of Ist Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur, before whom suit is pending, to send credit bill to an expert for examining genuineness of signature of petitioner. Same was dismissed by trial Court on 18.06.2008 on the ground that petitioner failed to produce contemporary signatures for the purpose of comparision by handwriting expert. Be it noted, by the time Court dismissed said application, petitioner filed I.A.No.2110 of 2008 to summon original hire purchase agreement from General Manager, ICDS Limited, Manipal. Petitioner pleaded that at or about the allowed credit bill, petitioner executed said agreement on 14.09.2007 in favour of General Manager, ICDS Limited, Manipal. Trial Court dismissed application on 20.08.2008, aggrieved by which, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. This Court ordered notice to respondent. Notice is duly served. None appears for respondent, though his name is appearing in cause list. This Court heard learned counsel for petitioner. As rightly pointed by him, his attempt to get credit bill sent to handwriting expert was negatived by trial Court, only on ground that contemporary signatures are not available. Dealing with this aspect in C.R.P.No.4509 of 2008 filed against I.A.No.1209 of 2003, this Court made following observations. ...There cannot be any doubt that when the disputed signatures are sent to an expert opinion, such signatures have to be necessarily compared with admitted signatures relevant to the period. That is to say, if the credit bill was signed by the defendant, which is disputed, there should be contemporary signatures of the defendant in 2000. Admittedly, when I.A.No.1209 of 2003 was considered there was no effort on the part of the petitioner to produce such contemporary signatures. Therefore, learned trial Judge was right to dismiss the application. It is brought to the notice of this Court that after dismissal of I.A.No.1209 of 2003, the petitioner filed another application to summon the document (allegedly, hire purchase agreement) on which admitted signatures of the petitioner are available. This itself would show that the petitioner did not satisfy the conditions necessary for sending a disputed signature to an expert opinion. In view of above, it is in the interest of justice to summon agreement dated 04.09.1997 executed by petitioner in favour of General Manager, ICDS Limited, Manipal. If the same is not produced, as observed by this Court, it would be futile exercise to send disputed signatures on credit bill to handwriting expert. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and impugned order of Court of Ist Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur in I.A.No.2110 of 2008 dated 20.08.2008 is set aside. Consequently, this I.A.No.2110 of 2008 stands allowed and trial Court shall take necessary steps to summon agreement dated 04.09.1997 from General Manager, ICDS Limited, Manipal, subject to petitioner / defendant herein depositing necessary batta and expenses. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) August 07, 2009 Bvv