THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5466 OF 2009 Dated: 08.10.2010 Between: Tanikonda B.Ramesh Babu ..... PETITIONER AND Tanikonda Gurivi Reddy .....RESPONDENT The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5466 OF 2009 ORDER : This revision petition is directed against the order dated 13.10.2009 passed in I.A.No.658 of 2009 in O.S.No.68 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadiri. The revision petitioner is the defendant. The suit has been filed by the respondent herein for recovery of money allegedly due under a promissory note. The revision petitioner/defendant filed his written statement contending that the signature on the promissory note was forged. To substantiate his plea, the defendant filed I.A.No.1185 of 2005 to send the suit promissory note to an hand-writing expert for comparison of the signature on the said document with the admitted signatures of the defendant. The said application was allowed by order dated 21.11.2005 and the defendant was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards the fee of expert and other costs. Accordingly, the petitioner deposited the amount and the document was sent to the expert. However, it appears that the expert requested the Court to send the document containing the signature of the defendant of the contemporary period. In the circumstances, the petitioner filed I.A.No.673 of 2008 to send for a complaint given by him in S.T.C.No.341 of 2002 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of Second Class, Kadiri stating that the complaint contained his signature and the same was registered as crime and a case in S.T.C.No.341 of 2002 was registered and was disposed of on 15.07.2003 by the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate of Second Class, Kadiri. The said application was allowed on 24.09.2008. However, as the document was not received from the Special Judicial Magistrate of Second Class, Kadiri, the petitioner filed I.A.No.658 of 2009 to send for another original document dated 29.01.2001 in the custody of the District Tribal Welfare Officer claiming that the said document also contained his signatures. The said application was dismissed by the Court below by order dated 13.10.2009 and aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Despite notice, none appeared for the respondent/plaintiff. As could be seen, the Court below had dismissed I.A.No.658 of 2009 on the ground that the said document which is an application said to have been made by the petitioner did not contain any attestation and moreover, the receipt of the said application was not even acknowledged by the office of the District Tribal Welfare Officer. A copy of the said document dated 29.1.2001 has been placed before this Court. On a perusal of the same, I am unable to hold that the observations of the Court below were not justified. As the signature contained in the said document cannot be held to be an admitted signature of the petitioner, the Court below cannot be held to have committed any error in dismissing I.A.No.658 of 2009. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly in view of the fact that I.A.No.673 of 2008 filed by the petitioner to send for the original document from the record in STC.No.341 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate of Second Class, Kadiri was allowed on 24.9.2008, the petitioner is granted liberty to make an application before the Court below for appropriate orders for production of the said document from the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate of Second Class, Kadiri in terms of the order in I.A.No.673 of 2008. If any such application is made, the Court below shall consider the same and take necessary steps for production of the said document without any delay to meet the ends of justice. Civil Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ___________ Date: 08.10.2010 G. ROHINI, J Ivd