THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.855 of 2010 ORDER: Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No522 of 2006 filed by the respondent in the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati, seeking recovery of money based on the promissory note executed on 10.03.2006 for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-. He has filed written statement in the said suit stating that he never borrowed the said amount from the plaintiff, he never executed the said pro-note, which is a fabricated one, his signature was forged on it and he never signed on it. It is stated that the trial is yet to be commenced. When the matter was posted for trial, the petitioner filed I.A.No.482 of 2009 for sending the disputed signatures in the suit pro-note, dated 10.03.2006 for comparison with the admitted signatures on the registered settlement deed, dated 17.08.2006 bearing document No.4837/06, in favour of his own brother, by name, R.Balasubramanyam. The trial Court observing that the said registered settlement deed, which was sought to be sent to the Handwriting expert for comparison and opinion with regard to the disputed signatures on the pro-note, was executed five months after execution of the suit pro-note and that the petitioner filed a xerox copy of the registered gift settlement deed, which cannot be convenient for comparison with the signatures on the original suit pro-note, dismissed the said application by passing the impugned order. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. Admittedly, the petitioner has not produced the original registered document and therefore, I do not see any infirmity or illegality in passing the impugned order by dismissing the I.A. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that when the defendant is disputing the signatures on the suit pro-note, the only defence available for him is to rebut the allegations of the plaintiff, more so, as against the presumptions available in favour of the plaintiff under the Negotiable Instruments Act. However, the defendant cannot be prevented from adducing appropriate evidence. Therefore, the petitioner is permitted to file a fresh application along with the original registered gift deed or any other original document executed at the relevant point of time containing admitted signatures. On filing such application, the trial Court shall consider the same on merits and pass appropriate orders as early as possible. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J 19th MARCH, 2010. kvni