HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.897 of 2010 and CIVIL REVISION PETITION (SR) No.33767 of 2010 Date: June 23, 2011 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.897 of 2010: Between: 1. Ghousia Begum & 3 others … Petitioners and B. Srinivas … Respondent * * * CIVIL REVISION PETITION (SR) No.33767 of 2010: Between: 1. Ghousia Begum & 3 others. … Petitioners and B. Srinivas … Respondent * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.897 of 2010 and CIVIL REVISION PETITION (SR) No.33767 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: These two revision petitions, being interconnected, are amenable to disposal by way of a common order. 2. The defendants in the suit, O.S. No.214 of 2007 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Zaheerabad, filed these revision petitions aggrieved by the orders passed by the Court below dismissing their interlocutory applications. I.A. No.495 of 2008 was filed by them in the suit seeking a direction for production of certain documents for the purpose of comparison of the handwriting and signature therein with the disputed signatures on the suit promissory note and the two cheques filed by the plaintiff in the suit. I.A. No.496 of 2008 was filed by them in the suit to send the promissory note and the two cheques along with the documents so summoned to the handwriting expert at the Forensic Science Laboratory at Hyderabad, for comparison of signatures. By individual orders dated 20.11.2009, the Court below dismissed the applications. 3. Perusal of the orders reflects that the Court below relied upon the judgment of this Court in Mir Khairudhin v. K. Somi Reddy[1], wherein it was held that the Court would have the power to send a document for examination by a handwriting expert only if it is already presented to it and not by summoning such document from elsewhere. Further, as it was for the plaintiff in the suit to discharge the burden of proving the due execution of the suit promissory note, the Court below was of the opinion that the stage had not arisen for referring the suit documents to a handwriting expert. 4. The trial in the suit is yet to conclude. As pointed out by the Court below, it is only after the completion of the adducing of evidence that an occasion would arise for the Court to ascertain whether the situation warrants scientific investigation of the suit promissory note for the purpose of adjudicating the issues arising in the suit. It is therefore premature on the part of the defendants in the suit at this stage to press for such investigation. The orders passed by the Court below therefore do not warrant interference. 5. The civil revision petitions are accordingly closed leaving it open to the Court below to take recourse at the appropriate time to such measures as are available to it under the Code of Civil Procedure, if the need arises, including scientific investigation of the suit documents. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: June 23, 2011. BSB [1] 2006 (5) ALT 224