THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2 9 7 6 OF 2009. O R D E R : Aggrieved of the order dated 25-03-2009 passed in I.A.No. 42 of 2009 in OS.No. 378 of 2007 by the learned IV- Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dismissing the application filed under section 45 of the Evidence Act read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the petitioner- defendant seeking to send the documents for expert’s opinion to determine the age of the ink of the signature of the executant i.e., the petitioner-defendant and age of the ink contents filled in Ex.A1 promissory note and also the age of the ink of the signature executed by PW.2 to the approved expert, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 2. The averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition are as follows: The petitioner, who is the Managing Director of M/s. Indo Dutch Company, which was floated in the year 1991 along with Krishna Kumar and JB Reddy as Co-Promoters of the Company. It is stated that the Company after successful run had suffered loss due to the fall in demand of the product. Thereafter, the Company became sick and that Sri J.B. Reddy had retired from the Company. Later Sri JB Reddy arrived for settlement with the petitioner and another promoter Sri Krishna Kumar in the year 2001-02. During the settlement, it has been agreed upon as the petitioner is the only Director, who has not brought any immovable property as security towards the availment of loan facilities from various financial institutions and banks. In the said settlement, the petitioner was asked to execute bank promissory note as security to be given to Sri JB Reddy and the same will be enforceable in the event if the security given by JB Reddy is sold by Bank of India to recover its dues. The company is under rehabilitation and B.I.F.R proceedings are pending. Sri JB Reddy who is in the possession of the Bank promissory notes given in early 2001-2002 has with malafide intention got filled the promissory notes and filed the suit seeking recovery of money in the year 2007. It is stated that the petitioner has not availed loan nor executed any promissory notes in favour of the respondent. Further the respondent has got the document duly filled up and filed the present case. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present application for the relief as stated supra. 3. On the other hand, the respondent-plaintiff denied the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. The respondent-plaintiff admits that it is true Sri JB Reddy has retired from the Directorship. But there is no settlement among the petitioner Sri JB Reddy and Sri Krishna Kumar in the year 2001-2002. It is averred that the petitioner did not gave blank promissory notes to Sri JB Reddy. Sri JB Reddy had never in possession of blank promissory notes of the petitioner. It is further averred that Sri JB Reddy has not filed the suit seeking recovery of amount but it is filed by the respondent. It is also averred that the petitioner has not availed the loan nor executed any promissory notes in favour of the respondent. Further it is averred that it is false that the respondent has got the document by the petitioner. Moreover, it is averred that there is no need to determine the age of the ink of the signature of the petitioner- defendant and the age of the ink of the contents under Ex.A1. It is denied that Sri JB Reddy put his signature at the time of filing of the suit. The petitioner has agreed the execution of Ex.A1 by himself and there is no need to send the documents for expert’s opinion. The petition is filed only to protract the litigation and hence prayed to dismiss the petition with costs. 4. On the basis of the rival contentions and after having heard the counsel on either side, the trial court dismissed the application on the ground that it is not maintainable, as the petitioner-defendant has not been precluded to establish on the date of Ex.A1 he has not executed it by examining independent witnesses. 5. Assailing the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 6. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, as seen from the deposition of the petitioner as DW.1, in the cross- examination, it appears that DW.1 in the main suit had admitted the signature on Ex.A1 and the signature on the stamp of Ex.A1. Now his grievance is that he affixed his signature on blank promissory note, which has been converted into Ex.A1 in the suit and thereby the respondent filed suit. On the basis of rival contentions, the trial court has already held that the burden is on the revision petitioner-defendant to establish the fact that he only signed on blank promissory note by examining any independent witness. But the said fact cannot be established by determining the age of ink of the signature of the petitioner, contents of the document and the signature of PW.2 on Ex.A1 by sending the same to expert for his opinion. The trial court has rightly observed that the expert can only determine and give opinion only with regard to the writings or signatures. Therefore, no interference can be called for. 7. Under the above circumstances, I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order. The CRP fails and is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. 8. As a sequel to the dismissal of the main revision, CRPMP.No.4118 of 2009, which has been filed to stay all further proceedings in OS.No.378 of 2007 on the file of the Court of IV- Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, is accordingly dismissed. _______________________________ JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI. 21-08-2009 I s L