IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO :1056 OF 2010 DATED:20.8.2010 Between: P.Raghavulu .....PETITIONER AND Vattiputi Pubanti. .....RESPONDENT This Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO :1056 OF 2010 ORDER: This revision petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 22.2.2010 in I.A.No:54 of 2010 in O.S.No:8 of 2005 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad. The petitioner herein is the petitioner in I.A.No:54 of 2010, who is the defendant in the suit. I.A.No:54 of 2010 is filed by the petitioner under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking to send the receipt dated 29.9.2004 passed by the respondent-plaintiff in favour of the petitioner-defendant for a sum of Rs.1,95,000/-(marked as Ex.B1) to the Government Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad for their fresh opinion. The said application is dismissed by the learned Senior Civil Judge. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the earlier occasion, I.A.847 of 2009 was filed by the petitioner seeking to send the signature of the respondent contained in Ex.B1 for comparison with her signatures on vakalat and plaint and it was also sought to obtain the specimen signatures in open Court. The said I.A was allowed and pursuant to the same, Ex.B1 was sent to the Expert for comparison and the Expert has submitted his report. But, the signatures sent to the Expert were not obtained in open Court so as compare the same with that of Ex.B1. Therefore, the present I.A.54 of 2010 is filed to send the document in question to the Expert for comparison and opinion. But, the Court below instead of allowing the said application dismissed the same and thereby, the petitioner is deprived of his right to prove the case before the Court below. Therefore, the order impugned is illegal warranting interference by this Court. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff that as per the prayer of the petitioner, Ex.B1 was sent to the Handwriting Expert for comparison of the signatures therein with that of the respondent on Exs.A1 to A4 and the Handwriting Expert after examining the signatures sent report opinion that the signatures on Ex.B1 and the signatures on Exs.A1 to A4 promissory notes are different. The petitioner has filed the present petition only to abuse the process of law thereby delaying and obstructing the decree against him. It is further stated by the learned counsel for the respondent that earlier, the petitioner has already filed I.A.847 of 2009 seeking to send Ex.B1 to the Expert for comparison with the signatures on the plaint and vakalat and the said I.A was allowed and pursuant to which, Ex.B1 was sent for opinion of the Expert and that the report given by the Expert goes against the petitioner. Apart from that, the Court has got power under the provisions of section 73 of the Evidence Act to compare with the available signatures. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact remains that on the earlier occasion, I.A.847 of 2009 was filed under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking to Ex.B1 to the Expert for comparison with the signatures on Vakalat and plaint and on examination, the Handwriting Expert sent his opinion, which is against the petitioner. The signatures on Vakalat and the plaint are the admitted signatures of the respondent plaintiff and therefore, the plea that the signatures of the respondent-plaintiff were not obtained in open Court, cannot be sustained. The Handwriting Expert has already submitted his opinion, which can be taken into consideration for the purpose of adjudication of the issue involved in the suit. At the same time, it should not be lost sight of the fact that the opinion of the Expert is only to assist the Courts. But, it can never become an important piece of document. In this background of the matter, I am of the view that filing of the present application once again for the self same relief, leads to draw an adverse inference that the same is filed only with a view to drag on the proceedings and that too, it was filed only after receipt of the opinion of the Expert which went against the petitioner. Therefore, I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. No order as to the costs. _________________ Justice G.Chandraiah Date:20.8.2010 gurc THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO :1056 of 2010 20th AUGUST, 2010