THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA CIVIL REVISION PETITOIN No. 5269 of 2011 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 16.08.2011 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasthi, Chittoor District, dismissing the application in I.A. No. 751 of 2009 in O.S. No. 59 of 2007, filed by the petitioner praying to send Exs.A2 and B1 to a handwriting expert for comparison of the signature of respondent No.2 thereon with her admitted signatures. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner has purchased the property from respondent No.2 under Ex.B1 and as respondent No.1 is also claiming the very same property having purchased the same under Ex.A2 from respondent No.2, it is appropriate that Exs.A2 and B1 along with the admitted signature of respondent No.2 should be sent to a handwriting expert for opinion, but the Court below committed an error in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner for the said purpose. Hence, he prayed that the order under revision be set aside and the civil revision petition be allowed. On the other hand, the counsel for respondent No.1 supported the order under revision. He submitted that the petitioner himself has admitted that respondent No.2, having executed Ex.A2 in favour of respondent No.1, has once again sold the property under Ex.B1 in his favour, and therefore, he cannot now contend that the signature of respondent No.2 on Ex.A2 does not belong to her and that it is a forged one. He further submitted that the petitioner not being a party to Ex. A2, the Court below has rightly refused to send Exs.A2 and B1 to a handwriting expert for comparison of the signature of respondent No.2 thereon with that of her admitted signature, and no interference is warranted with the order under revision, and prayed that the civil revision petition be dismissed. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for respondent No.1 and perused the order under revision. The document, namely Ex. B1, based on which the petitioner is claiming the suit schedule property is dated 17.08.1996, while the document, namely Ex.A2, based on which respondent No.1 is also claiming the very same property, is dated 13.05.1986. Both of them are claiming to have purchased the suit schedule property from respondent No.2. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.2 having sold the property earlier to respondent No.1 under Ex. A2 has sold the very same property to him under Ex.B1. Admittedly, the petitioner is not a party to Ex.A2. It was executed by respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.1. The petitioner is a third party to Ex.A2. The petitioner not being a party to Ex.A2 cannot say that the signature of respondent No.2 thereon is forged one. If any such plea is to be taken, it is respondent No.2, who has executed the same, has to take. In that view of the matter, no fault can be found with the order under revision passed by the Court below refusing to send Exs.A2 and B1 to a handwriting expert for comparison of the signature of respondent No.2 thereon with her admitted signature. Be that as it may, as observed by the Court below, if at all there is any difference in the signature of respondent No.2 on Ex.A2 and Ex.B1, the petitioner may bring the same to the notice of the Court at the time of hearing, and the Court, under Section 73 of the Evidence Act, will certainly examine and compare and ascertain the difference, if any. In the above view of the matter, I find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the order under revision, in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There is no merit in the civil revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 9th December, 2011 IBL