THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.110 of 2008 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against an order dated 24.10.2007 in I.A.No.767 of 2007 in O.S.No.94 of 2004 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kavaili. Petitioners 1 and 2 herein, who are the father and daughter, are defendant Nos.1 and 5 respectively in the suit being O.S.No.94 of 2002 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kavali, filed by the respondent herein, for recovery of money on the basis of Ex.A1- promissory note, dated 18.08.2003, alleged to have been executed by defendant No.1-Malakondaiah. In the written statement filed in the said suit, defendant No.1 denied the allegation of borrowing money under Ex.A1 from the plaintiff and also execution of Ex.A1 promissory note. However, since defendant No.1 died during pendency of the suit, his legal representatives were brought on record. Alleging that Ex.A1 is a forged document, the wife and the daughter of the deceased defendant No.1 filed the present I.A.No.767 of 2007, under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, seeking to send Ex.A1-promissory note, dated 18.08.2003, to the handwriting expert for comparison of the signatures of the deceased on Ex.A1 with that of his admitted signatures on the vakalath, notice, summons and other documents already available in the suit record, so as to ascertain the genuineness of Ex.A1. The respondent/plaintiff filed counter affidavit in the said I.A. stating that on the very same day of execution of Ex.A1, the deceased also executed a memorandum, regarding deposit of the account book bearing No.29278 and the agreement, relating to the site, to which he was a signatory, that the 2nd defendant, wife of the deceased, had put her thumb impression and their daughter also signed in the said memorandum, and, as such, sought to obtain the thumb impression of the wife of the deceased and to send the same, along with the said memorandum, to Expert, while sending Ex.A1, for comparison. The trial Court, after considering the matter in detail, vide orders dated 24.10.2007 allowed the present petition and ordered to send the document Ex.A1 promissory note along with copy of the agreement with the thumb impressions and signatures of the wife and daughter of the deceased. Sri T.C.Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioners, strenuously contended that though the present I.A. is filed by the petitioners for sending Ex.A1 promissory note to handwriting expert for comparison of the signature of the deceased on it with that of his admitted signatures on the vakalath, notice, summons and other documents, which are available in the suit record, the Court below ought not to have ordered to send Ex.A1 to handwriting expert along with copy of agreement with the thumb impressions and signatures of wife and daughter of the deceased, since the said agreement is not part of the record. Per contra, Sri Voruganti Bharath, learned counsel for the respondent, supported the impugned order passed by the trial Court. In fact, in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent/plaintiff, it is categorically stated that on the very same day of execution of Ex.A1- promissory note, the deceased first defendant executed a memorandum, and that his wife had put her thumb impression in it and also his daughter was a signatory to it, but however, the said averments were not controverted by the defendants by filing any rejoinder. Thus, I am of the opinion that the Court below has not committed any error calling for interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The civil revision petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU,J 05.10.2009 v v