THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.4462 & 4615 OF 2010 DATED:16.03.2011 Between: Madipalli Bhaskar. .... PETITIONER And Kilaru Jaganmohan Rao. .... RESPONDENT COMMON ORDER: Civil Revision Petition No.4462 of 2010 is directed against the order, dated 14.09.2010, in I.A.No.759 of 2010 in O.S.No.185 of 2009 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Khammam, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein to send for certain documents from the Gram Panchayat for the purpose of sending the same for the handwriting expert for comparison, was dismissed. 2. Civil Revision Petition No.4615 of 2010 is directed against the order, dated 19.08.2010, in I.A.No.580 of 2010 in O.S.No.185 of 2009 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Khammam, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send the disputed suit promissory note-Ex.A1 to the handwriting expert for comparison and opinion, was dismissed. 3. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 4. As both the Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the same suit and between the same parties they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 5. Respondent herein filed the suit for recovery of certain amount due from the petitioner-defendant under the suit promissory note. Petitioner filed written statement denying the execution of the promissory note and borrowal of the amount from the plaintiff. 6. Defendant did not however raise any specific plea in the written statement, disputing the genuineness of the signature on the suit promissory note-Ex.A1. On the other hand, petitioner-defendant pleaded that his brother gave certain blank promissory notes to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff, taking advantage of the same, filed the suit. In the absence of any specific plea in the written statement, denying the genuineness of the signature of the executant on the suit promissory note, there is no need to send the suit promissory note to the hand writing expert for the purpose of comparison and opinion regarding the said signature. For the same reason, there is also no need to send for the documents from the Gram Panchayat for the purpose of comparison with the signature on the suit promissory note inasmuch as the genuineness of the signature on Ex.A1-promisory note is not disputed. The impugned orders, dismissing the two applications, do not therefore call for any interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. Interim stay granted on 08-10-2010 and 01-10-2010 respectively stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 16th March, 2011. Tsy