HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. No. 671 OF 2010 Friday, the Nineteenth day of February, Two Thousand and Ten Between Sri K.Sanjay Kumar Petitioner AND K.Chandrasekhar and others Respondent THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. NO. 671 OF 2010 ORAL ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to assail the order dated 25.01.2010 in I.A. No. 487 of 2009 in O.S. 468 of 2002 passed by the learned XIII Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Secunderabad, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner herein, defendant No.1 in the above suit, under Order XVIII Rule 17 C.P.C. to recall the plaintiff - PW-1 for further cross examination with reference to expert’s opinion. The first Respondent herein filed the above suit for recovery of money basing on a promissory note and cheques issued by the petitioner, which were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, for expert opinion and the report dated 9.1.2007 is on record. It is case of the petitioner – first defendant that the said report needs to be read in evidence by examining PW-1 and marking the same. Hence, filed the petition seeking to recall PW-1 for further cross-examination. The case of the first respondent – plaintiff is that the petitioner herein had admitted his signatures on the promissory note and the chques in the notice and written statement. That apart, at the request of the plaintiff only, the documents were sent to the Handwriting Expert, who had given opinion and that he was cross examined by the counsel for the plaintiff on the documents. It is also stated that since the petitioner intends to fill the lacunae by further examining him, the petition be dismissed. The court below dismissed the petition observing that though the Expert Opinion was on record right from September, 2008, the petitioner has not stated anything about the same in his chief affidavit, leaving alone examining DWs 2 to 5 on the said aspect. It is further observed that since the petitioner had admitted the signatures on Exs. A-1 to A-9 and nothing is stated by him in his evidence, he cannot be permitted to cross-examine PW-1 and that too at the fag end after the closure of evidence. Aggrieved thereby, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the defendant. As can be seen from the counter affidavit filed before the court below and the order impugned, the petitioner has admitted his signatures on the documents, marked as Exs. P-1 to P-9. The petitioner intends to recall PW-1 for his further cross examination with reference to the Expert opinion. As observed by the court below, when the petitioner had admitted his signatures on Exs. A-1 to A-9, it is not explained as to how the relief sought for by the petitioner would furthers his case. Therefore, the court below is right in observing that filing of the Expert’s Report would suffice if the petitioner intends to rely on the Expert’s evidence. Having gone through the material available on record, I am of the considered view that no grounds are made out to interfere with the observations made by the court below and I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Inasmuch as the suit is of the year 2002, the trial court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible not later than six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, uninfluenced by any of the observations made hereinbefore. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari February 19, 2010 MAS