THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO C.R.P.No.1080 of 2008 Dated 24th June, 2010 Between: Dhulipala Narayanamma …Petitioner And Mandalapu Venkateswara Rao …Respondent THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO C.R.P.No.1080 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner, who is the defendant, seeks to assail the order rejecting an application purported to have been filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking to send the admitted signature vis-à-vis the disputed signature on Ex.A.1, which is a pro-note in a suit for recovery of money filed by the respondent herein for opinion of the handwriting expert. However, the Court below after contest did not accede to the request and dismissed the same. Hence the revision. Having considered the submissions and on perusal of the material on record, it has been already held by this Court that in the circumstances of this nature in a suit for recovery of money on the foot of a promissory note and which is being denied by the defendant, the exclusive burden lies on the plaintiff to prove its genuineness on all counts. Even the exercise which has to be made under Section 45 of the Evidence Act necessarily rests only on the plaintiff and defendant need not resort to any such exercise. Therefore, the very invocation of power under Section 45 of the Evidence Act by the defendant is wholly misconceived. However, it is need less to mention that if the plaintiff fails to make any such exercise and fails to establish, the petitioner can always take advantage of the same. Subject to the above, the revision is dismissed. No costs. ________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO,J) Date:24th June, 2010 grk