THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:4481 of 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 27.07.2009, in I.A.No.704 of 2009 in O.S.No.201 of 2003 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Narasapuram, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein-plaintiff under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, seeking to send Exs.A4 to A18 to the handwriting expert for comparison and opinion, was dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondents. Perused the records. 3. Petitioner-plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs.2,81,849.60ps against the respondents-defendants. According to the petitioner, respondents were having business dealings with the plaintiff and in token of the liability that arose from time to time, 2nd respondent- defendant signed the account books of the plaintiff. Defendants in their written statement admitted that the 2nd defendant has signed in the account books of the plaintiff. At the time of trial, it is stated that the 2nd defendant denied the signatures in the account books. Plaintiff, therefore, filed an application seeking to send Exs.A4 to A18-entries in the account books, containing the signatures of the 2nd defendant, to the handwriting expert for opinion after comparing with the admitted signatures on the vakalat and the written statement. The said application having been dismissed by the trial Court, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the plaintiff. 4. It is not in dispute that the 2nd defendant, in the written statement, admitted to have signed the account books. Merely because he chose to deny the signatures on the entries-Exs.A4 to A18 at the time of evidence, the documents need not be sent to the expert for opinion. The Court can always appreciate the bona fides or otherwise of such denial of signatures along with the other evidence available on record at the time of final disposal of the suit. That apart, admittedly an earlier application-I.A.No.596 of 2009 filed by the plaintiff for the self-same relief was withdrawn by the plaintiff. In the circumstances, the trial Court has on proper appreciation of the material on record, exercised its discretion in a proper way in refusing to send the documents-Exs.A4 to A18 to the handwriting expert for comparison and opinion. The interim order does not call for any interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction and the same does not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity. 5. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. ______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY,J 12th September, 2011. Tsy