THE HONL’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1372 OF 2011 Dated: 11.04.2011 Between : 1. Gali Narasimha Rao .. Petitioner And Kotha Ayyappa Swamy … Respondent THE HONL’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1372 OF 2011 ORDER : This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 28.03.2011 in I.A.No.4238 of 2008 in O.S.No.210 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram. The Revision petitioner is the defendant. The suit is filed for recovery of money on the basis of a promissory note, dated 16.10.2004. The defendant in his written statement while alleging that the suit promissory note was a forged document, filed I.A.No.4238 of 2008 with a prayer to send the suit promissory note to the Handwriting Expert for his opinion on comparison with the admitted signatures of the defendant. The plaintiff filed a counter opposing the petition on the ground that the defendant did not file any registered document bearing his admitted signatures of the year 2004 and that there was every likelihood of changing his signature intentionally. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties, the Court below by order dated 28.3.2011 dismissed the application holding that no signatures of the contemporary period were available so as to send the suit promissory note for expert opinion. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. As could be seen from the material available on record, either along with I.A.No.4238 of 2008 or thereafter no document containing the admitted signatures of the contemporary period could be produced by the defendant. Even before this Court no such document is produced. Except the oral assertion that the documents containing the admitted signatures of the defendant of the year 2004 are available, no material could be placed before the Court to substantiate the plea. It is also relevant to note that the suit is for recovery of money and the burden is on the plaintiff to establish his claim by adducing necessary evidence. Admittedly the plaintiff’s evidence has already been closed and the suit is coming up for further evidence of the defendant. At this stage, there is no need to send the suit promissory note for expert opinion particularly in the absence of admitted signatures of the contemporary period. Therefore the order under Revision cannot be held to be illegal on any ground whatsoever. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 11.04.2011 gbs