HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.5398, 5828, 5829 AND 5794 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: All the four revisions arise in identical circumstances. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order. 2. The petitioner filed four suits against the respective respondents herein, for recovery of amounts on the strength of promissory notes, in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Adoni, Kurnool District. The respondents filed written statements and denied the execution of promissory notes and borrowing of the amounts. 3. It is stated that recording of evidence on behalf of both the parties was concluded. The petitioner filed individual applications under Rules – 1 and 2 of Order – XVI read with Section 151 CPC with a prayer to summon the witnesses mentioned in the respective applications together with the documents mentioned therein. The common plea taken by him in all the applications was that the respondents have deliberately signed on the vakalats, written statements and depositions in a different way and it would be helpful for the Court to arrive at just and proper conclusion, if the documents mentioned in the petitions are summoned. According to him, those documents are contemporary in point of time and the Court can undertake comparison of the signatures on such documents with those on the respective promissory notes. The applications were opposed by the respondents. Through separate orders, dated 07-09-2010, the trial Court dismissed the application. Hence, these four revisions. 4. Sri K. Sitaram, leaned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the promissory notes were proved by examining the persons, who figured as witnesses and the present set of applications are filed only to buttress the contention and to seek further support. He submits that the respondents have altered their signatures with a desire to paint a different picture, altogether, before the Court. 5. Sri J.Prabhakar, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that the applications were filed only with an object to protract the proceedings, that too, after recording of the evidence was completed. He contends that no applications were filed under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, 1847 (for short ‘the Act’) and at no point of time, any difficulty was expressed by the Court in the context of comparison of the signatures. 6. It is not uncommon that the defendants in the suits filed for recovery of money on the strength promissory notes, deny the very execution of the promissory notes. In such cases, if the plaintiff is able to establish through oral or documentary evidence, he can prove the execution of the document notwithstanding the denial. In case, opinion of an expert becomes relevant, applications are filed under Section 45 of the Act, to send the document for examination of handwriting expert. 7. It is only when a document is sent for comparison of signatures to an expert, that in certain cases the experts would insist on furnishing of contemporaneous undisputed signatures. The existence of such documents would depend upon the time gap between the date of execution of the disputed documents and the date of examination of the documents as such. In a given case, the expert may undertake examination with reference to the disputed signatures or writing on the one hand and the available signatures or writings on the other hand, by analyzing the pattern of writing, slant, stress etc. In a way, that is the job of an expert to give a finding. The necessity to call for the contemporaneous signatures or writings would normally arise only when the expert requires them, to analyze the disputed and undisputed signatures. Admittedly, the petitioner did not file any applications under Section 45 of the Act. 8. It is permissible for the Court to undertake comparison of signatures under section 75 of the Act. Here again, ultimately, it is the Court that must feel the necessity of looking into any contemporaneous documents. The petitioner cannot himself feel that necessity and require the Court to send for such documents. Viewed from any angle, the applications filed by the petitioner cannot be sustained in law. The trial Court has taken the correct view of the matter. 9. Accordingly, all the four Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J December 24, 2010. KTL