HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5366 of 2010 ORDER: Heard both sides. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the defendant in the suit in O.S. No. 496 of 2003, aggrieved by the order dated 16.8.2010 passed in I.A. No. 218 of 2010 in A.S. No. 83 of 2008, pending on the file of the learned VII Additional District Judge, Warangal. The Suit in O.S. No.496 of 2003 is filed by the respondent- plaintiff for recovery of money based on a pronote. In the written statement filed in the suit, a specific stand was taken by the petitioner-defendant that he has not executed pronote dated 20.6.2001 and the signature of the defendant on the pronote is forged. When the suit was decreed, the matter was carried in first appeal in A.S. No. 83 of 2008 before the lower appellate Court. During the pendency of the first appeal, the petitioner-defendant filed I.A. No. 218/10 to send the document, Ex.A1 along with his admitted signature on the vakalatnama and written statement to the handwriting expert for examination and comparison and to submit report to take it as additional evidence. The said application was dismissed by the lower appellate Court by the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner-defendant has not taken such a stand before the trial Court. During the course of arguments before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant has produced a copy of the written statement filed in O.S. No.496/03. Paragraph-4 of the written statement reads as under: “It is further false to state that this Defendant has executed the pronote on 20.6.2001. The plaintiff is put to strict proof in respect of execution of the pronote dated 20.6.2001 before the attestors. This defendant specifically states that he has not executed the pronote dated 20.6.2001. The signature of the defendant on the pronote is forged and that it is brought up in or about in the month of July, 2003 by putting ante-date.; in order to wreck vengeance upon this Defendant. Therefore, the suit is not maintainable against this Defendant.” From a perusal of the aforesaid paragraph of the written statement, it is clear that the petitioner has taken a specific stand before the trial Court that his signature on the promissory note was forged and he had not executed any such promissory note. Inasmuch as the impugned order is passed by the lower appellate Court, mis-construing the defence of the petitioner herein, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to remand the matter back to the lower appellate Court for passing appropriate orders afresh in I.A. No. 218 of 2010. For the aforesaid reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order under challenge dated 16.8.2010 passed in I.A. No. 218 of 2010 is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned VII Additional District Judge, Warangal for fresh consideration. The learned Additional District Judge shall pass appropriate orders in I.A. No. 218 of 2010 afresh, after giving notice and opportunity of hearing to both the sides. Inasmuch as the appeal is of the year 2008, the learned Additional District Judge is directed to pass appropriate orders in I.A. No.218 of 201 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from today. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. ____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY,J Date: 2nd August, 2011 pnb