HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4598 OF 2009 . DATED 6TH SEPTEMBER, 2011. BETWEEN Vannemreddy Kumara Swamy …Petitioner And Kalidindi Somaraju ….Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4598 OF 2009. ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed aggrieved by the order dated 2.9.2009 whereunder and whereby the learned Senior Civil Judge, Narasapuram dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner/defendant under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking to send the disputed signatures on the promissory notes for comparison with the admitted signatures and to determine the age of the ink used for the signatures that were put on the alleged promissory notes. The respondent/plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit based on the promissory note dated 31.01.2003 for recovery of Rs.4,00,000/- and subsequent interest thereon from the petitioner/defendant. The petitioner/defendant filed his written statement contesting the suit. He filed the impugned interlocutory application seeking to send the promissory note to the Government Handwriting Expert for comparison of admitted signatures with the disputed signatures and to find out the age of the ink that was used on the said promissory notes. The said request of the petitioner was rejected by the Court below in the order under revision. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that when the suit promissory note itself is a rank forgery and brought into existence for the purpose of unlawful gain, the Court below ought to have sent the document to the handwriting for obtaining opinion thereon. It is the specific allegation of the petitioner that he never borrowed any amount from the respondent. He further submits that if the document in question is ordered to be sent to the handwriting expert no prejudice would be caused to the respondent/plaintiff. He placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Uppu Jhansi Lakshmi Bai Vs. J.Venkateswara Rao (AIR 1994 AP 90). It is very strange to see that the petitioner/defendant himself agreed that he has transactions with the respondent/plaintiff since more than twenty years and the respondent had obtained his signatures on number of blank printed promissory notes, blank non-judicial stamp papers, blank white papers and note books. He however stated that since more than twenty five years, he has transactions with the respondent/defendant regarding supply of prawn seed, prawn feed etc., He also agreed that there were also chit transactions in between them. It is the specific allegation of the petitioner that when the petitioner asked to pay the due amount to the tune of Rs.67,036/- pursuant to the chit transaction and return of the blank promissory notes, the respondent instead of returning the same filed the aforesaid suit to gain unlawfully. Considering these circumstances, the Court below rightly observed as follows “.. in the light of these, it is highly doubtful to understanding as to how the signature can be contended to be forged if they are obtained in the promotes when blank. Even in his evidence he categorically deposed that his signatgure was obtained by the plaintiff in blank pronote. So in those circumstances the very plea of forgery cannot be taken into consideration for sending the disputed signatures in Ex.A.1 to a hand wring expert for opinion…” Having affixed his signatures on his own volition on the blank pronote notes, he cannot now turn around and take the plea that the same are forged. In view of these unique facts and circumstances, the decision cited supra relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner has no application to the case on hand. That was where the time and place of execution and jurisdiction of the Court in entertaining the suit are in dispute. The main allegation of the borrower/plaintiff in that case is that the creditor/defendant has fabricated the signature of the attestor which was in different ink. In the case on hand, it is not proper for the petitioner/defendant to plead that the suit pronote is a ‘rank forgery’ when he himself offered the signatures on the blank pronotes during their alleged long time transactions which relate to more than twenty years. The Court below taking into consideration all these aspects in the proper perspective rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/defendant. For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order under revsion warranting interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ------------------------------------ -- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 6th September, 2011. Msnro