HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. No.4696 of 2009 Date:14.10.2009 Between: Chandra Prakash and others. … Petitioners And Gulbir Singh and others. … Respondents The Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari C.R.P. No.4696 of 2009 ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the order dated 9.9.2009 made in E.A. No. 58 of 2009 in E.A. No.19 of 2007 in E.A. No. 13 of 2007 in E.P. No. 7 of 2006 in O.S. No. 362 of 2003 of the XIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The petitioners are the decree holders. According to the petitioners, the 1st respondent in his cross-examination has denied about signing on the counter foils of the rental receipts, which were marked as Exs., B4 to B18. Hence, they filed E. A. No. 58 of 2009 before the trial Court under Section 45 of the Evidence Act seeking to send Exs. B4 to B18 along with the admitted signatures of the 1st respondent to a handwriting expert for comparison. While opposing the petition, the 1st respondent filed before the trial Court. The trial Court taking into consideration the fact that the documents under Exs. B4 to B18 contained the name of the tenant as Harminder Singh and not that of the 1st respondent and as there was no material on record to show that the said documents contained the signatures of the 1st respondent, refused to send the same to the expert for comparison. Accordingly, it dismissed the E.A. through the impugned order. Hence, the present revision. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned order. In the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent before the trial Court, the 1st respondent has categorically stated that the documents-Exs. B4 to B18 were introduced through R.W.2, who was summoned at the instance of the petitioner; that those documents contained the name of one Harminder Singh, who was the tenant, but not the name of the 1st respondent herein. It is further stated that the petitioner not having been acquainted or familiar with those documents cannot have any say or opinion in such like matters. Admittedly, the documents under Exs. B4 to B18 did not contain the signature of the 1st respondent. When the documents in question did not contain the signature of the 1st respondent herein, the petitioners cannot seek for sending of such documents for comparison. The trial Court while taking the aforesaid fact into consideration, has rightly dismissed the E.A. In the circumstances, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference. The revision petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ____________________ T. MEENA KUMARI,J DATE: 14th October, 2009 pnb