HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2483 and 2484 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: The respondent filed O.S.No.63 of 2006 in the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem, against the petitioner for recovery of a sum of Rs.8,75,300/-. The petitioner filed written statement opposing the suit. He denied the execution of the promissory note and alleged forgery. The trial of the suit commenced and the recording of evidence on behalf of the respondent was concluded. 2. The petitioner filed I.A.No.1103 of 2009 under Section 45 of the Evidence Act with a prayer to send the suit promissory note to handwriting expert for opinion. The trial Court is said to have directed the petitioner to file the contemporary documents to suit promissory note containing his undisputed signatures. The petitioner reported that no such documents exist. However, he filed I.A.No.1218 of 2009 with a prayer to summon the records pertaining to his service in M/s. Nava Bharat Ventures (Power Plant), Paloncha. The trial Court dismissed that I.A. through an order, dated 07.09.2009. As a result, I.A.No.1103 of 2009 was also dismissed on 14.09.2009. Hence, these two revisions. 3. Heard Sri K. Chidambaram, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri S. Madan Mohan Rao, learned counsel for the respondent. 4. The suit is of the year 2006. The petitioner appears to have caused every possible obstruction to the progress of the suit. The nature of the applications filed by him at various stages gives an impression that his intention is only to avoid trial or at least to protract it. It is brought to the notice of this Court that he filed an interlocutory application for recording his cross-examination at Haryana. This Court takes serious exception to the attitude being exhibited by the petitioner. 5. In the course of enquiry into the application filed under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, the trial Court, naturally, insisted on production of contemporary documents containing the undisputed signatures of the petitioner. He did not come forward with any such documents. On the other hand, the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.1218 of 2009 is not filed by the petitioner or by any person authorized on his behalf, but by his counsel. The application was untenable on the face of it. The trial Court is virtually left with no alternative except to dismiss the application. Though no exception can be taken to the dismissal of I.A.No.1218 of 2009, mere dismissal of that application must not have resulted in rejection of I.A.No.1103 of 2009. In case the contemporary documents are not available, the Court can even send the written statement and the vakalat filed by the petitioner. To ensure early disposal of the matter, the documents can be sent for comparison and opinion of an Expert in the Government Forensic Science Laboratory. 6. Hence, C.R.P.No.2483 of 2010 is dismissed. C.R.P.No.2484 of 2010 is allowed and the order therein is set aside. The trial Court shall send the disputed promissory note together with the written statement and the vakalat filed by the petitioner to the Government Forensic Science Laboratory, for comparison and opinion, duly indicating that the opinion shall be given within a period of two months. In case the petitioner persists in filing frivolous applications, the trial Court shall take the same into account to form an opinion as to his conduct. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 26th July, 2010. CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2483 & 2484 of 2010 (Dismissed & Allowed) 26th July, 2010 CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2483 and 2484 of 2010 DATE:26.07.2010 Between: Borra Siva Koteswararao … Petitioner and Chekuri Venkateswara Rao … Respondent