HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P. No.909 OF 2010 DATE:19-03-2010 BETWEEN: Nadella Yedukondalu @ Venkateswarlu & Another. …Petitioners AND Kovvuri Venkata Kanaka Satyanarayana Reddy @ Kovvuri Kanaka Reddy …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P. No.909 OF 2010 ORDER: Defendants filed this revision assailing the correctness of the orders of III Additional District Judge, Kakinada, dated 14.12.2009 whereby the application filed by the plaintiff-respondent herein in I.A.No.3207 of 2009 in O.S.No.7 of 2008 to send the suit promissory note-Ex.A.1, dated 10.10.2007 to handwriting expert for comparison of the signature of the executant on Ex.A.1 with the admitted signature on the gift deed, dated 19.11.2007 executed by first defendant in favour of second defendant was allowed. The respondent herein instituted the above suit for recovery of money covered by the promissory note-Ex.A.1 said to be executed by the defendants. The defence of first defendant-first petitioner herein was that the signature on Ex.A.1 does not belong to him and it is a forged document. Hence, the plaintiff- respondent herein filed the impugned I.A. for sending Ex.A.1 promissory note to handwriting expert for comparison of signature of the executant on Ex.A.1 with that of the admitted signatures on gift deed, dated 19.11.2007 executed by first defendant in favour of second defendant. The revision petitioners-defendants filed a counter stating that they have no objection for sending the suit document to the handwriting expert along with the gift deed, dated 19.11.2007 for comparison of the signatures found on those documents. But, the first defendant pleaded that he issued two cheques on 6.3.2007 and 27.8.2007 for Rs.50,000/- each drawn on State Bank of India, Sriramnagar Branch, Kakinada bearing cheque Nos.443646 and 443651, and that the signatures on those cheques are prior to the suit document-Ex.A.1 and therefore, they may also be sent to the handwriting expert for comparison with that of the signature found on Ex.A.1. The lower Court allowed the I.A. by the impugned order sending Ex.A.1 and the gift deed, dated 19.11.2007 executed by first defendant in favour of second defendant to the Government handwriting expert for comparison while rejecting the plea of the defendants-petitioners herein for sending the cheques for comparison of the signatures contained thereon. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that along with the suit document-Ex.A.1 and gift deed, the two cheques issued by the first defendant-first petitioner herein, dated 6.3.2007 and 27.8.2007 for Rs.50,000/- each ought to have been sent for comparison to the expert. Inasmuch as the first defendant denied the very execution of Ex.A.1-suit document and alleged that it is a forged one, the lower Court was right in sending Ex.A.1 promissory note to handwriting expert for comparison of signature of the executant on Ex.A.1 with that of the admitted signatures on gift deed, dated 19.11.2007 executed by first defendant in favour of second defendant, which are contemporous in nature. Coming to the plea of the petitioners for sending the two cheques for comparison, admittedly, those cheques were issued by the first defendant in favour of third parties i.e. Kotak Securities Limited, but not in favour of the plaintiff. It is also brought to my notice that a separate application being I.A.No.3206 of 2009 was already filed for summoning of those cheques. Therefore, if the said I.A. is allowed, on receipt of those cheques by the lower Court, it is always open for the defendants-petitioners herein to take steps to send the said cheques also to the expert for comparison. In the absence of receipt of the cheques by the lower Court, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality warranting interference by this Court. The revision fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to take steps to send the cheques to the expert for comparison, on receipt of the same by the lower Court. No costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. MARCH 19, 2010 Tsr.