HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1900 & 1979 OF 2009 DATE:22-01-2010 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1900 OF 2009 BETWEEN Pilli Trimurthulu Satyanarayana …Petitioner AND Undamatla Mutyala Rao & Another. …Respondents CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1979 OF 2009 BETWEEN Pilli Trimurthulu Satyanarayana …Petitioner AND Undamatla Mutyala Rao & Another. …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1900 & 1979 OF 2009 COMMON ORDER: These two revisions are filed by the first defendant against the orders of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, dated 2.12.2008 and 22.1.2009 dismissing I.A.Nos.937 of 2008 and 26 of 2008 filed for sending suit pronote to handwriting expert to compare the signature therein with the admitted signatures of defendants, and to summon Pilli Srinivas; Guttula Ramana, and Addanki Mukteswara Rao of Kakinada for the purpose of giving evidence on the side of defendants respectively. The plaintiff-first respondent herein instituted the above suit for recovery of amount based on the pronote, which not only contain the signatures of the defendants but also their thumb impressions. But, the defendants wanted to send the suit pronote to the handwriting expert only for the purpose of comparison of the signature, but not for the comparison of the thumb impression of the petitioner, which could be more accurate scientifically. Further in the written statement, the plea taken by the petitioner- first defendant was that the plaintiff along with one A.China Babu approached the defendants and M.Durga Rao, who is the brother- in-law of the plaintiff and requested to utilize the office of first defendant on the ground that they are doing real estate business. Some time later, some disputes arose among the petitioner-first defendant, plaintiff and China Babu and for settlement of the said disputes, the plaintiff and China Babu obtained the signatures of the petitioner-first defendant on empty stamp papers and also took 7 empty cheques of State Bank of India and Andhra Bank, and that the plaintiff and China Babu got executed a registered power of attorney for the house at Gandhinagaram in the name of third parties under coercion and the same was sold to third parties without taking consent of the petitioner-first defendant, and that the plaintiff and China Babu having colluded with each other fabricated the suit promissory note by forging the signatures of the petitioner with a mala fide intention. Now, the petitioner-first defendant filed the impugned I.As. to send the suit pronote to handwriting expert and to summon Pilli Srinivas; Guthula Ramana and Addanki Mukteswara Rao who are stated to be the scribe and attestors to the alleged settlement deed entered among the petitioner, plaintiff and China Babu. But, as observed above, in the written statement, nowhere it is stated that there was a settlement arrived among the petitioner, plaintiff and China Babu on 13.7.2006, and that no issue to the said effect was framed. In the affidavit filed along with the impugned I.A., it is the case of the petitioner that on the date of settlement of dispute on 13.7.2006, a letter was executed by him followed by another settlement letter and that the originals of same are in possession of the plaintiff, which was not the case of the petitioner in his written statement. In view of the same, no illegality is discernable with the impugned orders passed by the lower Court. The revisions lack merit and are accordingly dismissed, but without costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. JANUARY 22, 2010 Tsr.