IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.112 of 2010 BETWEEN: Bandi Ramachandra Rao ..... PETITIONER(S) AND Modalavalasa Madhusudhanarao .....RESPONDENT(S) HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.112 of 2010 ORDER: The order under revision is the order passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, in I.A.No.1003 of 2009 in O.S.No.365 of 2007 and O.S.No.367 of 2007 dated 26.11.2009. The said I.A. was filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, requesting the Court to send Ex.B.2 sale deed, executed by Annepu Satyanarayana and duly attested by P.Ws.1 and 2, to the handwriting expert for comparison of the signatures of the attestors of Ex.B.2 with the admitted signatures of P.Ws.1 and 2. The Court below observed that the petitioner-defendant had admitted to the signatures on the promissory notes, as well as the handwriting in Exs.A.1 and A.5 promissory notes, as belonging to him and that the respondent-plaintiff had also not denied and disputed the contention that the petitioner-defendant had himself scribed both the promissory notes. On the ground that there was no dispute with regard to the signatures on Exs.A.1 and A.5 promissory notes, the Court below observed that the question of sending the promissory notes to an expert for examination did not arise. The Court below dismissed the I.A. filed by the petitioner-defendant observing that the so called Ex.B.2 sale deed, which was sought to be sent to an expert for comparison of the signatures, was not connected with the present suit and, even without sending the document for expert examination, the suit could be disposed of. Sri K.S.Gopala Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that, having held against the petitioner herein on the ground that he had admitted to the signatures in the promissory notes, there was no reason for the Court below to observe that Ex.B.2 sale deed had no connection with the present suit and that the order of the Court below was required to be set aside to the limited extent that the learned Judge observed that Ex.B.2 sale deed had no connection with the present suit. The observations made in the I.A. cannot in any manner influence the conclusions which the Court below would arrive at after full-fledged trial in the main suit. It is wholly unnecessary for this Court to examine whether or not the observation of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, in I.A.No.1003 of 2009, that the Ex.B.2 sale deed had no nexus with the main suit, inasmuch as they are merely prima facie and would not have any bearing on the adjudication of the main suit. Subject to the observations made hereinabove, the Civil Revision Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. ______________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. 16th February 2010 CVRK