THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Civil Revision Petition No.193 of 2011 Order: This CRP is directed against the orders dated 10.11.2010 passed in Memo dated 08.10.2010 filed in O.S. No.123 of 2003 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sompeta. The petitioner herein is the defendant in the main suit. The respondent herein filed the suit for recovery of money basing on a promissory note said to have been executed by the petitioner herein. The said suit was filed in 2003. The petitioner herein filed I.A. No.221 of 2006 in the said suit praying to send the disputed signatures contained in the suit document to the hand writing expert for comparison with his admitted signatures available on the written statement and vakalat. The lower Court allowed the said application, by orders dated 15.03.2007. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent herein filed CRP No.1985 of 2007, and this Court, by an order dated 02.12.2008, dismissed the same. Then the disputed document along with the written statement and vakalat containing the admitted signatures of the petitioner were sent to the handwriting expert. However, the handwriting expert returned those documents, vide his letter dated 08.05.2007, and requesting the Court to send the signatures of the petitioner herein signed in the normal course of business such as letters, agreements, cheques etc., pertaining to the year 2001 or around 2001. Then the lower Court directed the petitioner herein to produce such documents into the Court as per the docket orders dated 05.07.2010. The petitioner herein filed a memo on 09.07.2010 stating that no such documents are available pertaining to the year 2001 or around 2001. Again, the same documents were sent to the handwriting expert and the handwriting expert again returned the same by his letter dated 08.09.2010. Then the petitioner filed another memo requesting the Court to direct the handwriting expert to compare the disputed signatures with his admitted signatures on written statement and vakalat. The lower Court observing that the petitioner has not complied with the earlier directions of that Court dated 05.07.2010, rejected the said memo. Aggrieved by the same, this revision has been filed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order of the lower Court is justified in the circumstances of the case. Admittedly, the disputed document i.e., the promissory note was executed in the year 2001. Suit was filed in the year 2003. I.A. No.221 of 2006 was filed in the year 2006. It is not clear on what date the written statement and vakalat were filed. Anyhow, the objection of the handwriting expert that the documents bearing the signatures of the petitioner pertaining to the year 2001 or around 2001 are required for comparison seems to be justified, because a party may change his signature at the time of filing vakalat or written statement and that probability cannot be ruled out. Therefore, it is always better and on safe side to secure the specimen signatures or admitted signatures of the party from any government office or any other public undertaking i.e., Banks etc., so that there may not be any scope to change the signatures to the convenience of the parties. Since the petitioner was given an opportunity to furnish the signatures pertaining to the year 2001 or around 2001, the petitioner ought to have utilized that opportunity and he ought to have filed the particulars showing the name of the bank or any other public office wherein his signatures are available. Since he failed to do so, the lower Court has rightly rejected the memo by reason of the impugned orders, and I see no illegality or irregularity to interfere with the same. The CRP is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the CRP is dismissed at the stage of admission itself. However, in the circumstances, no costs. ____________________ B. Chandra Kumar, J. Date: 12.08.2011 Nsr