HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1537 of 2010 & 2143 OF 2010 Dated 27-8-2010 C.R.P.No.1537 of 2010 Between: K.Sekhar. …Petitioner. And: N.Bangaraiah. ...Respondent. C.R.P.No.2143 of 2010 Between: K.Sekhar. …Petitioner. And: N.Bangaraiah. ...Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1537 of 2010 & 2143 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: Aggrieved by the common order dated 6th March, 2009 passed in I.A.Nos.397 of 2009 and 47 of 2010 in O.S.No.214 of 2008 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Pakala, these two Civil Revision Petitions have been preferred by the petitioner. Since both the revisions are an out come of the common order and since the parties in both the revisions are one and same and since the issue involved in both the revisions is interlinked, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Petitioner herein in both the revision petitions is the defendant and respondent herein in both the revision petitions is the plaintiff. The status of the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the Court below for the sake of convenience. Both the above revisions have been preferred by defendant. The suit in O.S.No.214 of 2008 was filed by the plaintiff before the Court below seeking recovery of due under the pronote dated 5-12- 2005 said to have been executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant filed an application in I.A.No.397 of 2009 seeking to send Ex.A.1 (suit pronote) along with his specimen signatures to the Government Hand Writing Expert, FSL, Hyderabad for comparisons and give opinion. He also filed an application in I.A.No.47 of 2010 seeking to receive household card and sale agreement dated 26-5-2008 said to have signed by the defendant. The Court below having observed that there are no bonafides to allow the applications, dismissed the two applications. Aggrieved by the same, the present two revisions have been preferred by the defendant. Heard the learned counsel and perused the material available on record. Defendant has denied the execution of pronote even in the written statement and he never admitted his signature on Ex.A.1 suit pronote. During the course of trial, the Court below after examining P.Ws.1 to 3 and marking Exs.A.1 to A.3, posted the matter for the defendant’s side evidence. At that juncture, the defendant filed an application in I.A.No.397 of 2009 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send Ex.A.1 suit pronote along with specimen signatures of the defendant to the Government Hand Writing expert FSL Hyderabad for comparisons and for opinion. The plaintiff resisted the said application on the ground that the defendant has not filed his admitted signatures of the contemporary period of suit pronote made during the official course of business, for which the defendant filed another application in I.A.No.47 of 2010 under Order 7 Rule 14 C.P.C. seeking to receive a sale agreement dated 26-5-2008 said to have been executed by him in favour of his own brother by name K.Muthu and House Hold Card containing his signature. The plaintiff also resisted the said application on the ground that the signatures on the said sale agreement and House Hold Card are of three years after execution of suit pronote and they are not concerned to the contemporary period of suit pronote. The suit pronote is said to have been executed on 5-12-2005 whereas the sale agreement is executed on 26-5-2008 and in between these two documents, there is a gap of 30 months as rightly observed by the Court below. A perusal of the record goes to show that the Head of the family was the mother of the defendant and her signature was only required to be taken into account along with the signature of the Mandal Revenue Officer on the Household Card and even though the defendant is one of the family members, his signature on the said Household Card cannot be taken into consideration. Therefore, I am of the opinion that it is for the defendant to rebut the allegations made by the plaintiff by examining the witnesses and scribe etc., of the document. Since the defendant has not filed any of his admitted or proved signatures of the contemporary period of the suit pronote for sending the same along with the suit pronote to the Hand Writing Expert, the Court below has rightly dismissed the two applications. In that view of the matter, I see no merits in both the revisions and as such, they are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, these two Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. ________________________ JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH Dated 27-8-2010 Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1537 of 2010 & 2143 OF 2010 Dated 27-8-2010