IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.437 OF 2011 Between : Ganne Aswarthappa .... PETITIONER A N D Akula Obilesu …RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.437 OF 2011 O R D E R: This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 22.12.2010, in I.A.No.716 of 2008 in O.S.No.152 of 2004 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Dharmavaram, whereunder and whereby, the application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) to send the suit document to the handwriting expert for examination and comparison of the alleged signatures found in the suit document with the signatures found in the Vakalat and Written Statement and also for examination and comparison of two hand writings found in the body of the promissory note and the endorsement on the reverse side of promissory note with each other and also for examination and comparison of two handwriting with the handwriting of the alleged scribe, was dismissed. 2. Heard. 3. The specific case of the petitioner/defendant is that the husband of the respondent/plaintiff forged the signature of the petitioner on a promissory note with the connivance of attesters and scribe and therefore, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 4. If really the petitioner wanted to compare the signature on promissory note, the petitioner would have made a request to the Court for taking the admitted signatures of the husband of respondent for the purpose of comparison with the signatures found on the promissory note. That is not the request of the petitioner before the Court below. When the petitioner is disputing about his signature on promissory note and further asserts that the signature therein was signed by husband of respondent, the question of sending the suit document along with Vakalat and Written Statement to expert for comparison and opinion does not arise. Therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmities so as to call for the interference by this Court and accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J FEBRUARY 15, 2011. YVL