THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.R.P.No.4268 of 2009 ORDER: This revision is preferred against the order, dated 21.07.2009 passed by the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, (FTC), Visakhapatnam, in I.A.No.802 of 2008 in O.S.No.598 of 2006, whereunder and whereby the application filed by the revision petitioner under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send the suit promissory note to hand writing expert for comparison of the signature on the suit promissory note with the available signatures on record, was dismissed. 2. The petitioner is the second defendant. The first respondent, who is the plaintiff, filed the suit for recovery of money based on the promissory note. The second respondent is the first defendant. The second defendant denied the execution of the promissory note. The suit is of the year 2006. When the suit is coming for defendants’ evidence, the present application was filed by the petitioner in the year 2008 to send the suit promissory note to hand writing expert for comparison of the signature on the suit promissory note with the available signatures on record and the said application was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that there is uncertainty as to the existence of admitted signatures of the contemporary period of suit promissory note and as such no useful purpose will be served even if the promissory note is sent to hand writing expert. Hence, the C.R.P. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. It is seen that there are no documents with admitted signatures of contemporary period of suit promissory note to compare the signature of the petitioner on the suit promissory note. Further, the signature of the petitioner on the lease deed is not an admitted signature. As pointed out by the trial court, no useful purpose will be served if the promissory note is sent to the handwriting expert. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order so as to call for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. Hence, the C.R.P. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J 25.09.2009 Stp