IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUAND AND NINE CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3908 of 2009 Between: Karri Krishna Kumari, W/o. Lakshmana Reddy, Hindu, aged about 44 years, 18th Ward, Tallamudunurupadu, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari Dist. …Petitioner/Defendant AND Satti Venkata Reddy, S/o.Subbi Reddy, Hindu, Aged 74 years, cultivation, Kunchanapalli, Tadepalligudem Mandal, West Godavari Dist. …Respondent/Petitioner THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO Civil Revision Petition No.3908 of 2009 ORDER: Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.250 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem. The suit was filed by respondent for recovery of amount based on promissory note dated 12.02.2004. Petitioner filed written statement in March 2005 raising a plea inter alia stating that the suit promissory note is forgery. On 28.01.2008, she filed Interlocutory Application being I.A.No.72 of 2008 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, (‘Evidence Act’, for brevity) requesting the trial Court to send suit promissory note to an expert for comparing the signatures. The trial Court dismissed the application, aggrieved by which, present Civil Revision Petition is filed. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that his client filed an application for sending the documents to an expert before commencement of the trial. The Court kept the application pending and dismissed the same after a period of one year six months, and in the meanwhile, completed the trial. He, therefore, submits that the order is vitiated by error. Secondly, relying on Amara Venkata Subbaiah and Sons v Shaik Hussain Bi[1] and Thiruvengada Pillai v Navaneethammal[2], he submits that when the suit document is disputed as forgery, the Court cannot resort to comparision of signatures under Section 73 of the Evidence Act and is required to send the documents to an expert. Lastly he submits that when Interlocutory Application was filed by petitioner, respondents endorsed ‘no objection’ on the application and therefore, learned trial Judge ought to have allowed the application. Learned counsel for respondent opposed the Civil Revision Petition. Insofar as the submission that respondent endorsed ‘no objection’ on application is concerned, it cannot be accepted. It appears that no such plea was taken before the lower Court when this application was considered. Insofar as delay part is concerned, it is no doubt true that in idle conditions, the Court ought to have decided the Interlocutory Application filed under Section 45 of the Evidence Act before proceeding with the trial. But it appears that by inadvertence or otherwise, petitioner did not press for interlocutory application before commencement of trial, and waited till completion of the chief and cross examination of P.W.1. It appears after completion of trial, the petitioner pressed for disposal of application. Therefore, this Court does find any error apparent on the face of record, as pointed out by learned counsel. It is no doubt true, if there is a serious doubt regarding signatures, comparison of signatures under Section 73 of the Evidence Act is always not safe. It does not however mean, as observed by Supreme Court in Thiruvengada Pillai (supra), that the Court is denuded of the power under Section 73 of the Evidence Act to compare disputed handwriting. In this case, having regard to the fact that the trial has already been completed and the matter is coming up for arguments, the trial Court, in its discretion, thought it fit that the documents cannot be sent to an expert. Merely because the lower Court made the said observation, interference of this Court cannot be called for. It shall however be open to petitioner to raise objections at the time of arguments. The Civil Revision Petition, with the above observations, is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) October 23, 2009 Bvv [1] 2008 (5) ALD 547 [2] 2008 (3) ALD 112 (SC)