IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1553 of 2010 Between: V. Jayamma ... PETITIONER AND R. Nagaraju and another ... RESPONDENTS ORDER: Heard the learned counsel. 2. The learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool recorded the under noted reasons while dismissing the application filed to send the suit promissory note, summons, vakalath and written statement to be compared with her signatures on the suit promissory note to handwriting expert as hereunder: “As pointed out by the plaintiff, while giving evidence as DW1, the petitioner/1st defendant, in her cross-examination when she was shown the vakalath, written statement filed by her, she denied the signatures thereon. But now, curiously she wants to send those documents for comparison stating that they contain her signatures. When the defendant/ petitioner denied her signatures on the vakalath and the written statement, they cannot be said to be admitted signatures to be sent for comparison with the disputed signatures on the suit pronote. As per the decision reported in 2006 (3) ALT page 605, opinion of the expert can be sought only by sending the signatures of a party on a disputed document for comparison with the one on an undisputed document and not with the signatures on a document executed subsequent to disputed document. In this case the plea of the petitioner/ defendant is forgery. The suit pro-note is of the year 2005. The suit was filed in the year 2007. After filing of the suit she filed vakalath and written statement. When the plea of petitioner is forgery, as argued for the plaintiff, the possibility of her changing the pattern of signature while filing vakalath and written statement cannot be ruled out. In such a case, it is not proper to send them for comparison with the disputed signatures. Moreover, there is possibility of change in the pattern of the signatures by afflux of time. So, sending the disputed signatures for comparison with the signatures of subsequent period is not proper and justifiable. This petition is filed at the stage of arguments. As argued for the plaintiff/1st respondent, it appears that this petition is filed only to drag on the proceedings. If the petitioner wants to send the suit document for comparison of her signature, nothing prevented her to file the petition at the earliest point of time.” 3. In the light of the convincing reasons recorded by the learned Judge this court is satisfied that there is no illegality or legal infirmity warranting interference. 4. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ P.S. NARAYANA, J April 26, 2010. PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1553 of 2010 April 26, 2010