THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY C.R.P.No.459 of 2011 13th September, 2011 Between :- Chowdam Nanda Kumar .. Petitioner And Challa Chandra Sekhar Reddy .. Respondent THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY C.R.P.No.459 of 2011 ORDER:- This revision is directed against the order dated 6-9-2010 passed in I.A.No.889 of 2010 in O.S.No.2 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur, whereby and whereunder, the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge partly allowed the petition filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act read with Section 151 of C.P.C. The petitioner is the defendant and whereas the respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.2 of 2009. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money basing on Ex.A.1 – Suit Promissory Note for Rs.50,000/-. The petitioner/defendant entered appearance and filed written statement disputing the execution of the suit promissory note. The plaintiff besides examining himself as P.W.1, examined the attestor namely S.M.Shareef as P.W.2. The petitioner/defendant filed I.A.No.880 of 2010 to send the suit promissory note along with his admitted signatures to handwriting expert. He also sought for sending the signatures of P.W.2 for comparison with the signature appearing on Ex.A.1 – Suit Promissory Note. It is the contention of the petitioner/defendant that P.W.2 is not the person who attested Ex.A.1 – Promissory Note. The respondent/plaintiff resisted the application by filing counter. Learned Principal Junior Civil Judge on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the Counsel appearing for the parties proceeded to allow the application in part granting the relief of sending the suit promissory note along with the admitted signatures of the petitioner/defendant for comparison while negativing the relief with regard to sending of the signature of P.W.2 for comparison with the signature appearing on Ex.A.1 – Promissory Note as an attestor. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 18-2-2011. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the order impugned in the revision. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that P.W.2 is not the attestor of Ex.A.1 – Promissory Note and therefore his signatures are required to be sent to the handwriting expert for comparison with the signature appearing on Ex.A.1. The dispute raised by the petitioner/defendant is that he is not executant of the promissory note. He disputed his signature appearing on the promissory note which has been exhibited as Ex.A.1. The Trial Court directed for sending the admitted signatures of the petitioner/defendant with the disputed signatures appearing on Ex.A.1 – Promissory Note. With regard to the signature of the attestor appearing on Ex.A.1 – Promissory Note, P.W.2 asserted that he figured as an attestor of the same. There is no need of sending the signature of P.W.2 for comparison with the signature of attestor appearing on Ex.A.1. The Trial Court is justified in rejecting the relief of sending the signatures of P.W.2 for comparison with the signature of attestor appearing on Ex.A.1. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. _________________________ B.Seshasayana Reddy, J 13th September, 2011 smr