IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2977 of 2011 Between: Korra Satyanarayana … Petitioner And Chinna Konda Rao … Respondent This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2977 of 2011 ORDER: - This revision is filed by the petitioner/defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution to revise the dismissal order passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada in I.A.No.290 of 2010 in O.S.No.212 of 2009 filed for sending the suit promissory note along with the standard signatures of the petitioner taken in the open court before adducing evidence for the purpose of comparison. In the suit filed based on the promissory note by the respondent/plaintiff, after closure of the plaintiff’s evidence, when the matter is coming up for defendant’s evidence, twice it was adjourned for enabling him to lead evidence. At that stage, the petitioner filed the impugned I.A.No.290 of 2010 in O.S.No.212 of 2009 for sending the suit promissory note along with the standard signatures of the petitioner taken in the open court before adducing evidence for the purpose of comparison. The lower court rightly dismissed the said I.A. as the petitioner has not taken the plea in the written statement that on the date of execution of the promissory note he was working at Dachepalli cement factory and there is no possibility of him presenting at Gudivada and executing the suit promissory note nor when P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined, they were not cross-examined on the said aspect; that the petitioner has not filed any document containing the signatures of the contemporaneous period and that if the signatures of the defendant are obtained in the open Court, he may disguise his signatures and alter the ordinary character of his hand writing. Admittedly, once the petitioner failed to make any suggestion when the witnesses on the plaintiff’s side were examined that he was working in Dachepalli cement factory and he was not present at Gudivada the place of execution of the promissory note, the said plea on which he want to send the document is not tenable. Similarly, the suit is posted for defendant’s evidence on 31.08.2010 and thereafter on 03.09.2010 and later on costs of Rs.100/- to 09.09.2010 and again on costs of Rs.200/- to 15.09.2010. In stead of proceeding with the leading of evidence, the petitioner/defendant filed the present petition only to drag on the proceedings, which shows that he is interested in drag on the proceedings. Further, the evidence of the expert is a very week piece of evidence and it is not a conclusive proof nor it will outweigh the direct evidence adduced by the parties. In view of the same, no infirmity is discernable with the order passed by the court below, warranting interference. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J 05-08-2011 lmv HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2977 of 2011 Dt: 05-08-2011 lmv