HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.4982 of 2010 ORDER: The respondent filed O.S.No.981 of 2008 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool, against the petitioner, for recovery of certain amount, on the strength of a promissory note. The suit was opposed by the petitioner by filing written statement. He pleaded that the promissory note, said to have been executed by the petitioner on 26.09.2005, was fabricated by the respondent. With a view to prepare a ground for filing an application under Section 5 of the Evidence Act, for sending the document for Expert’s opinion, the petitioner filed I.A.No.661 of 2010, under Order XIII Rule 10 C.P.C., with a prayer to summon certain documents, namely Execution petition and vakalatnama in E.P.No.24 of 2004 in O.S.No.657 of 2001 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur. The petitioner stated that he filed the E.P., referred to above, in the year 2004, and his contemporaneous signatures would be available for comparison with the promissory note, dated 26.09.2005, either by the Court, or by the Expert. The application was opposed by the respondent. Through order, dated 02.09.2010, the trial Court dismissed the I.A. Hence, this revision. Sri G.Maloji Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the comparison of signatures on the disputed promissory note can be made, only with a document of the relevant period; and the present application was field only with a view to avoid any controversy, in this regard. He contends that the trial Court ought to have appreciated the effort made by the petitioner. Though notice is served on the respondent, he has not chosen to enter appearance. It is not uncommon that the defendant, in a suit for recovery of money, based upon the promissory note, disputes the execution, and in quite large number of cases, applications are filed under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. The general complaint in matters of this nature is about the contemporaneous nature of the undisputed signatures, which are made available for comparison with the disputed signature. Many a time, insistence on the production of documents executed at the relevant point of time is on account of the fact that over the period, pattern of signatures of any individual undergoes change, or the signatures on the vakalath or deposition may deliberately put in a different form. Keeping these aspects in view, the petitioner wanted the trial Court to summon the record in E.P. filed by the petitioner in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur, at that point of time at which the promissory note is said to have executed. It is not as if the mere summoning of the record or comparison of the same by an Expert is going to clinch the issue. Much would depend upon the findings of the Expert, or observation of the Court on such comparison. Further, it shall be open to the respondent also to raise any objection, in this regard. The effort made by the petitioner in the direction of helping the Court in arriving at a proper conclusion cannot be thwarted. Hence, the C.R.P. is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. I.A.No.661 of 2010 in O.S.No.981 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool, shall stand allowed. On summoning the record, the trial Court shall undertake comparison by itself, or take further steps in accordance with law, if any application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, is filed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:01.04.2011 GJ