THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. NO. 2974 of 2007 Date of order: 22.7.2010 Between: K. Venkata Reddy (died0 by LRs and others …Petitioners and P. Ramachandra Reddy ..Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. NO. 2974 of 2007 ORDER: This revision petition is filed by the defendants who seek to send the suit promissory note-Ex.A1 for comparison of signatures with the admitted signatures of deceased Venkata Reddy appearing on Ex.B2. The said application was dismissed by the court below on the ground that the defendants should have taken steps much earlier. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondent, though served through his counsel appearing for him in the Court below, as early as on 13.9.2007, nobody appears on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff. The defendants denied the suit promissory note in their written statement and had taken a specific plea that the signature appearing thereon is forged. In order to establish the same, the defendants have taken steps to call for the admitted signatures of the deceased Venkata Reddy appearing in the records of District Credit Cooperative Bank. The said record has been called for and marked as Ex.B2 and it is at that stage that the defendants filed the present application for sending Ex.A1-pronote to be compared with Ex.B2. I am unable to appreciate the reasoning of the court below that the defendants’ application is belated. The court below has lost sight of the fact that unless the admitted document is available for comparison, the defendants could not have asked Ex.A1-pronote to be compared with any other document. Admittedly, Ex.B2 has been summoned from the bank and immediately thereafter the present application was moved by the defendants. The comparison of signatures by the expert with the admitted signature of the deceased was, therefore, necessary to enable the defendants to establish their plea in the written statement. The court below was, therefore, not justified in rejecting the application on the ground of delay. The further reasoning of the court below that the court itself can compare the handwriting under Section 73 of the Evidence Act, is no doubt true, but when the defendants seek examination of the disputed signatures with admitted signatures by an expert, the said request cannot be rejected in the manner in which the court below under the impugned order has rejected. The impugned order is, therefore, liable to be set aside. Accordingly the revision petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and IA No. 397 of 2007 shall stand allowed as prayed for. No costs. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 22.7.2010 KR