THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU C.R.P.No.578 of 2010 ORAL ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order made in I.A.No.544 of 2009 in O.S.No.1551 of 2004 dated 19.11.2009 on the file of the learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore, whereunder the Application filed under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act read with Section 151 of CPC seeking to send the signature in the promissory note dated 30.9.2001 to the handwriting expert for verification along with admitted signatures of the petitioner-defendant available on record was dismissed. Petitioner is defendant and respondent is plaintiff. Respondent laid suit in O.S.No.1551 of 2004 for recovery of money on the basis of promissory note dated 30.9.2001. It appears, the evidence on behalf of plaintiff as well as defendant was closed. In fact, at one stage, the evidence of defendant was closed and at his request, it was reopened and he was allowed to lead evidence and after closure of evidence, the matter was adjourned for number of times and finally the matter was posted for arguments. At that stage, the present application under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act read with Section 151 of CPC is filed. The said application was resisted by the respondent-plaintiff stating that the petition is belated one and serves no purpose. After examining the rival contentions, the trial Court recorded its findings, which reads as under: “It is settled law that opinion of handwriting is nothing but piece of evidence and it is for the Court arrived its own decision on appreciation of the entire material available on record. Here in the present suit, already both sides adduced necessary evidence. It is pertinent to make a note that generally this kind of cases, the burden of proof is on the party who realize on the instrument and its execution. If there are attestors and scribe to the alleged instrument it is most easy way to find its execution by examination of the one or all the attestors and the scribe. When there is a direct and trustworthy evidence of persons, who had actually seen to the signing of the instrument and already those persons evidence available on record to prove the allegations or adjudication of the issues, I feel it is not necessary to refer the opinion of handwriting expert. Of course, when there is no other possible evidence to corroborate the evidence of party would arise instrument there is a chance to seek the opinion of the handwriting expert. Here in this case, as already mentioned as the plaintiff examined the scribe and attestor. This is a suit for recovery of money relating to the year of 2004 and already once the defendant evidence closed due to non-representation even using ample time to adduce the evidence. Meanwhile to give an opportunity to the defendant, the suit is reopened and examined the defendant. After examination of the DW1, the petitioner belatedly filed this petition after some adjournments. Since, there is already necessary evidence adduced by the both parties to prove the execution of Ex.A1. At this belated stage, it is not necessary to seek the opinion of handwriting expert to prove the Ex.A1.” In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the trial Court has not committed any error in dismissing the I.A. May be, the petitioner-defendant has taken a plea that the promissory note was a fabricated one, but nothing prevented him from filing the said application either at the time of his evidence or at the time of examination of witnesses on his behalf. In the case on hand, after closure of evidence on both sides, at the instance of petitioner, the matter was reopened and after completion of his evidence, the matter was adjourned for number of times and was finally posted for arguments. At that stage, the present application is sought to be filed. Therefore, I am of the opinion that there is no necessity of sending the document for handwriting expert, particularly in view of the fact that the scribe and attestor are examined. Further, the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for petitioner in NOOKALA SRIDEVI v. D.KRISHNARJUNA RAO AND ANOTHER[1], GURU GOVINDU v. DEVARAPU VENKATARAMANA[2] a n d GHULAM GHOUSE AND OTHERS v. MADRASI JEELANIA SHAMA-UL-ULOOM EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY AND ANOTHER[3] have no relevance to the facts of the present case, therefore they are not delved in detail. The C.R.P. is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the C.R.P. is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 13.4.2010 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU C.R.P.No.578 of 2010 13.4.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU C.R.P.No.578 of 2010 Date: 13th April, 2010 Between: Ravuru Raghunadha Reddy .. Petitioner And Gandavarapu Siva Prasad Reddy .. Respondent [1] 2005(5) ALT 10 [2] 2006(5) ALT 17 [3] 2007(4) ALT 432