THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2831 of 2011 ORDER: The respondent filed O.S.No.1458 of 2008 against the petitioner in the Court of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam for recovery of amount on the strength of a promissory note, dated 11.12.2005. The petitioner filed a written statement denying the very execution of promissory note. According to him, it was forged. He has also filed I.A.No.59 of 2011 under Section 45 of the Evidence Act with a prayer to send the promissory note for examination by a handwriting expert. The respondent opposed the application. The trial Court dismissed the I.A. through order, dated 20.06.2011, on the ground that the petitioner did not file any undisputed contemporaneous document. The same is challenged in this revision. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the nature of disposal, which this Court intends to give in the revision, it is not felt necessary to issue notice to the respondent. The promissory note, on the basis of which the suit is filed, is of the year 2005. The application to send that document for examination by a handwriting expert was filed in the year 2011. Over a period of six years, there is bound to be some variation in the signatures. Added to that, if the signatures are to be obtained from the petitioner for comparison at this stage, he may put his signature in such a way that it is not similar to the one, on the disputed document. Obviously, by taking into account the time gap between the date on which the promissory note is said to have been executed and the date on which the I.A. was filed, the trial Court took the view that the request of the petitioner cannot be acceded to, unless the document containing undisputed signatures of the petitioner at the relevant point of time, are made available. The petitioner did not place any such documents before the trial Court. Therefore, the I.A. was dismissed in the opinion of this Court rightly. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before this Court, the copies of certain documents of the year 2005, which contain the signatures of the petitioner. As a matter of fact, these documents ought to have been filed before the Court along with the application. Even now, such an exercise can be undertaken. Hence, the civil revision petition is dismissed. It is, however, left open to the petitioner to file a fresh application along with the originals of the documents that are executed in or around 2005 with the signatures of the petitioner. In case such an application is filed, the trial Court shall consider the same on its own merits and shall not reject the application on the ground that I.A.No.59 of 2011 was dismissed by it. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:26.07.2011 Note: Issue cc in one week. (B/o) kdl