HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY C.R.P. No.332 of 2010 Dated: 9th February, 2010 Between: B.Rajaiah. … Petitioner And Md.Khajamioniddin. … Respondent Order: Heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for respondent. This revision petition is filed by the petitioner/defendant, aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.744 of 2009 in O.S.No.341 of 2005, by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warrangal dated 01.12.2009. The suit is filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,29,550/- based on two promissory notes. From a perusal of the impugned order and also pleadings, it is clear that D.W.2 is neither an executant of the document nor attestor of Exs.A1 and A2. In that view of the matter, the Court below by recording valid reasons rejected the application filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, to collect the sample writings of D.W.2 so as to compare them with the alleged writings on the demand promissory notes, by the expert. In view of the valid reasons recorded, I do not find any ground to admit this revision petition, warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. For the aforesaid reasons, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 9th February 2010 LMV