IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO : 3120 of 2009 Petition under Section ____ of CPC., to revise/against the order dated ______ in NO : of 0 on the file of the court of the Between: N. Venkatesan S/o Narayana Rao R/o D.Mo. 10-15-70, K.K. Layout Tirupati Town, Chittoor District ..... PETITIONER AND S.J. Mohini Kumari Bai W/o S.J. Ravi Kumar R/o D.No. 18-1-90/32A, yasoda nagar Tirupati Town, Chittoor District .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.MANJUNATH ALLUR Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/CRP{TSSB} THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3120 of 2009 ORDER: Petitioner is the defendant against whom the suit in O.S.306/2007 was filed by the respondent herein on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati for recovery of amount based on EX.A1 promissory note. The evidence on behalf of the plaintiff/respondent was over and when the suit was posted for evidence of the petitioner/defendant, the petitioner/defendant filed an application in I.A.906/2007 in O.S.306/2007 for sending Ex.A1 promissory note to a handwriting expert along with admitted signatures of the petitioner/defendant taken before the Court for comparison and opinion. The said application has been dismissed on the grounds that the said application is belated one and the petitioner did not produce any record with his admitted signatures for the period covering 2003 and 2004 during which the suit promissory note was executed. In fact, the petitioner/defendant sought for sending the said promissory note with his admitted signatures taken by the Court. The said I.A. was filed in 2008, but whereas the promissory note is of the year 2003-04. In the absence of filing any documents containing the admitted signatures of the defendant as admitted by the plaintiff, during the relevant period, the promissory note cannot be sent to a handwriting expert for opinion. The Court below has rightly dismissed the application of the petitioner/defendant. I do not see any infirmity legal or otherwise to interfere with the impugned order. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 07.08.2009 Dsr