THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P. No.4629 of 2011 ORDER: The respondent filed O.S.No.30 of 2009 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chirala, against the petitioner for recovery of certain amount, said to have been sanctioned on loan. It was pleaded that the loan was sanctioned to enable the petitioner to purchase certain consumer durables, and that in spite of receiving delivery of goods, he did not pay the loan. Written-statement was filed by the petitioner, admitting the fact that he submitted application to the respondent for sanction of loan. He, however, stated that no goods were received by him, and that the receipt mentioned in the plaint does not contain his signature. The trial of the suit commenced, and has progressed to a substantial extent. The petitioner filed I.A.No.1220 of 2011, under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act (for short ‘the Act’), with a prayer to send the receipt, mentioned in the plaint, for opinion of an expert. The application was opposed by the respondent. It was pleaded that the signature can be compared by the Court itself, and that the application was filed with a view to delay the proceedings. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through order dated 23-09-2011. Hence, this revision. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. The effort of the petitioner in filing the I.A., is to establish that the receipt does not contain his signature. The person, who issued the receipt, is not before the Court. Much would depend upon the version of such an agency. The respondent did not choose to implead the trader, in whose favour it is said to have issued the cheque, and from whose the petitioner is said to have taken the goods. This Court is of the view that, in case the respondent takes steps to implead the trader, the controversy would be reduced to a substantial extent. As of now, it cannot be said that the order passed by the trial Court suffers from any infirmity. Hence, the C.R.P., is disposed of, directing that, in case the respondent takes steps to implead M/s Sri Lakshmi Auto and Appliances, Chirala, as defendant No.2, within six weeks from today, it shall be open to the petitioner to submit an application under Section 45 of the Act, once again, depending upon the stand, which the said agency may take, after being impleaded as defendant No.2. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:22-11-2011 KO