HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRP Nos.4816 and 4844 of 2009 DT.31-12-2009 CRP No.4816/2009: Inapakolla Surya Kumari Satyaveni …Petitioner V. 1. Prathipati Jogayamma and another ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRP Nos.4816 and 4844 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: These two revision petitions by the petitioners-defendants are directed against the common order of the Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram dt.31-8-2009 passed in IA No.649/2009 and 651/2009 respectively. The petitioners-defendants filed IA No.649/2009 under Section 45 of the Evidence Act to send the suit promissory notes marked as Exs.A-1 to A-4 to any expert for opinion as to whether the signatures said to be of V. Srinivasa Rao, alleged executant of those promissory notes and the writing in the body of respective pronotes are written at one and the same time. The petitioners-defendants also filed IANo.651/2009 to send the promissory notes marked as Exs.A-1 to A-4 to any handwriting expert for comparison whether the signatures said to be that of V.Srinivasa Rao as their executant are identical in all the promissory notes or differ with each other and to give evidence. In the affidavit filed in support of the petitioners-defendants ie., IA No.649/2009, it was stated that Exs.A-1 to A-4 are fabricated and created by the plaintiff with the help of her henchmen and first petitioner-first defendant is acquainted with the signature of her husband never signed Exs.A-1 to A-4. Mere perusal of the signatures said to have been that of Srinivasa Rao differs from Exs.A-1 to A-4 and hence they should be sent to the expert. The first defendant, who is examined as D.W.1, in her cross- examination stated that she did not see the original promissory notes filed in the court. Further, the second defendant after became major filed written statement taking a plea that one of the four promissory notes was fabricated by taking advantage of the signature of his father when it was blank. But the second defendant has not denied the execution of the promissory notes. The trial court rightly held that to ascertain whether the signatures under Exs.A1 to A-4 are similar or identical or that they differ from each other, no expert evidence is required since the executant signed in different manner. It is well settled that expert evidence is a weak piece of evidence and cannot out weigh the direct evidence adduced by the parties. The burden lies on the plaintiff to prove that said Srinivas Rao executed the said promissory notes by leading evidence. Application filed after examining D.W.1 is only to protract the litigation. In view of the same, no infirmity is discernible in the common order passed by the trial court warranting interference. Both the civil revision petitions are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J Date:31-12-2009 kmr