IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3127 OF 2007 BETWEEN: Seelam Durga Vani …PETITIONER AND Mallula Vijaya Kumar …RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3127 OF 2007 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 03.07.2007, in I.A.No.1575 (A) of 2006 in O.S.No.50 of 2005 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram, whereunder and whereby, the application filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 (for short, ‘the Act’) to send Ex.A.1 suit promissory note along with the signatures of the petitioner to be taken in the open Court to hand writing expert, Government Forensic Department, Simla, Himachal Pradesh, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondent in spite of service of notice. 3. The petitioner herein is the defendant in the Original Suit. The respondent herein filed the suit basing on a promissory note Ex.A-1 said to have been executed by the petitioner herein. The petitioner denied her signature and filed an application to send Ex.A-1 promissory note along with her signatures to be obtained in the open Court, to handwriting expert for his opinion. 4. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram, dismissed the said application holding that the admitted signatures of the petitioner have not been made available and that no purpose would be served if the signatures are obtained at this stage in the open Court and sent them to the handwriting expert. It is also observed that alternatively, the Court can itself compare the signatures. 5. It is true that the purpose of sending a document to a handwriting expert would be served if admitted signatures are sent along with the disputed signatures for comparison. While obtaining signatures in the public Court, misusing of such opportunity cannot be over-ruled. Of course, the Court has got all the powers to compare the signatures by itself under Section 73 of the Act. However, such comparison itself is always risky. 6. In the above circumstances, it is just and reasonable to dispose of this revision petition with an observation that if the admitted signatures are made available to the Court by the petitioner, the same may be sent along with the disputed signature to the handwriting expert, Government Forensic Department, for opinion and comparison. 7. Subject to the above observation the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _____​__________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR, J JANUARY 20, 2011. YVL THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3127 OF 2007 January 20, 2011