THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.2149 of 2010 ORDER: The respondent initiated legal action to recover a fairly small amount of Rs.12,000/- against the petitioner, one decade ago. After one full round of litigation spread over three counts, he now stands where he started, facing several questions to answer with no hope of reaching finality. In a way, the episode tells upon the effectiveness of the system. The respondent filed a suit, being O.S.No.350 of 2000 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoty, to recover a sum of Rs.12,000/-, said to have been lent by her husband to the petitioner. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. Appeal preferred by the respondent was allowed. The petitioner herein filed C.R.P.No.6873 of 2005. The revision was allowed on 22.10.2008 and the matter was remanded to the trial Court. After remand, the petitioner filed I.A.No.565 of 2009 under Order 26 Rule 10(A) of C.P.C., with a prayer to send Ex.A.1, the G.P.A., said to have been executed by the husband of the respondent in her favour, to the Handwriting Expert. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through order, dated 12.04.2010. It opined that in a given case the Court itself can compare the signature as provided for under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the same and filed this revision. Heard Sri L.J.Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. This Court no doubt permitted both the parties to adduce evidence, while remanding the matter to the trial Court. The evidence must be on issue, which is germane to the subject matter of the suit. The promissory note is said to have been executed by the petitioner in favour of the husband of the respondent. Since the husband of the respondent is residing abroad, he appears to have executed G.P.A. in favour of the respondent to enable her to file the suit for recovery of the amount. The record discloses that no issue was framed as to the genuinity or legality of Ex.A.1. It is only after the matter was remanded that the petitioner came forward with the plea that the signature of the principal on Ex.A.1 does not tally with the signature of that gentlemen on other documents and accordingly filed the I.A. On the face of it, the I.A. is frivolous. The only one, who could have requested for sending Ex.A.1, for examination by an expert, be it under Section 45 of the Evidence Act or Rule 10(A) of Order 26 of C.P.C., is the actual signatory. He did not suspect it. Ex.A.1 does not contain the signature of the petitioner. Therefore, the I.A. was obviously a step to protract the litigation, which is already pending since one decade. The C.R.P. is accordingly dismissed. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dated: 31.05.2010 GJ