IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2565 of 2010 Between: K.Narayanaswamy Naidu ..... PETITIONER AND S.Chandra Babu Naidu .....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2565 of 2010 ORDER: Petitioner is the defendant in the suit O.S.984/2007 filed by the respondent for recovery of money based on the promissory note on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor. Pending the suit the petitioner herein filed I.A.414/2008 under Sec.45 of the Indian Evidence Act for sending Exs.A1 to A3 to handwriting expert contending that the signatures of the defendant on Exs.A1 to A3 are forged and to prove the forgery he requested the court below to take his signatures in the open Court for comparison with the signatures contained in Exs.A1 to A3. It is stated that though the said application was underwent 27 adjournments for hearing on petitioner’s side, the petitioner was called absent and there was no representation on his behalf when the matter was called on 10.03.2010 and therefore, the said application was dismissed for default. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed I.A.101/2010 under Or.9 Rule-9 CPC for restoration of the said I.A. by setting aside the dismissal order dated 10.03.2010. The Court below dismissed the said I.A. by order dated 06.04.2010 holding that the petition is filed only to drag on the proceedings and there is negligence on the part of the petitioner. Though I am of the opinion that the applications filed under Or.9 Rule-9 CPC have to be liberally considered and such dismissal orders have to be set aside, but on a perusal of the affidavit filed by the petitioner in I.A.414/2010 it revealed that he wanted to send the disputed signatures on Exs.A1 to A3 along with signatures to be obtained in open court. Exs.A1 to A3 are relating to the year 2004 or 2005 much prior to filing of the suit. If that be so, it cannot be said that the signatures of the petitioner to be obtained in open court are admitted signatures by the plaintiff and therefore, I am of the opinion that I.A.414/2008 itself is frivolous and without any merit, and in that view of the matter I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 16.07.2010 Dsr