THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1970 of 2011 Dated:17.06.2011 Between: G.Amaranatha Reddy, S/o.Sidda Reddy. …Petitioner and M.Harinatha Reddy, And another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1970 of 2011 ORDER: The first respondent instituted the suit, being O.S.No.41 of 2002, on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Piler, against the second respondent and the petitioner herein for recovery of amount based on pronote dated 11.11.1999. The petitioner filed separate written statement, inter alia, pleading that the plaintiff is not in a position to lend money, that the plaintiff and the first defendant colluded, forged and fabricated the signatures of the petitioner on the pronote. The suit went to trial. The plaintiff completed evidence during which the attestors P.Ws.2 and 3 were also examined. In his turn, the petitioner examined himself as D.W.1 and another witness as D.W.2. At that stage, he filed I.A.No.149 of 2011 purportedly under Order XXVI Rule 10(A) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), to send the suit pronotes for scientific investigation for comparison of signatures on the pronotes with the admitted signatures on the documents available on the deed of execution. The same was opposed by the plaintiff contending that the application filed after completion of evidence is belated and that scientific evidence cannot override the oral evidence of attestors P.Ws.2 and 3. By impugned order dated 26.04.2011 the Court below dismissed the same. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner filed the instant civil revision petition under 227 of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff and the first respondent are related. They colluded and brought into existence four suit promissory notes for wrongful gain. If the petitioner had really borrowed the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- there was no necessity for execution of four promissory notes which itself would improbablise the case of the plaintiff. Lastly he would contend that if the disputed signatures on the pronotes are sent to handwriting expert now, no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff/first respondent. There is no dispute that the suit has been pending for more than nine years before the trial Court. At the stage of closure of the evidence, the petitioner chose to file an application to send the suit promissory notes to handwriting expert. It is not a case where the petitioner herein is not clear about the defence in the suit. A perusal of his written statement, a copy of which is placed before this Court, would show that he raised a specific plea that the suit promissory notes are forged and fabricated. The written statement was filed on 28.01.2004 and nothing prevented the petitioner to file the application which is now filed. It is no doubt true that delay itself cannot be a ground to deny an application for sending the disputed signatures to handwriting expert. But, in the facts and circumstances of this case the Court was justified in declining the relief to the petitioner. The Civil Revision Petition is misconceived, and the same is accordingly dismissed. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 17.06.2011 vs