THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Civil Revision Petition No. 2968 of 2011 ORDER: This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 04.07.2011 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasthi, Chittoor District, dismissing the application in I.A. No. 377 of 2011 in O.S. No. 46 of 2008, filed by the petitioner-defendant to send Exs.A3 and A5 to handwriting expert for opinion. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order under revision. The contention of the petitioner that since it is his specific case that he never executed Exs. A3 and A5- revival letters, and that they were fabricated by the respondent-Bank for the purpose of this case, the Court below ought to have sent the said documents to handwriting expert, and it committed a grave error in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner in that regard, cannot be accepted. The petitioner, though, in the affidavit filed in support of the present application, has taken a stand that he has not received the suit summons and do not know the suit proceedings, the fact remains, as is evident from the order under revision, the petitioner, in his evidence as D.W.1, recognized his signatures on Exs. A1 and A2, namely the loan application and the agreement executed by him in favour of the respondent bank. He also recognized his signatures on the vakalat filed on his behalf by his counsel as well as in the written statement filed by him, in the suit. He also admitted his signatures in the affidavits filed by him in support of the applications in I.A. No. 460 of 2010 and I.A. No. 125 of 2011. Though he admitted his signatures thereon, curiously he has taken a stand that the signatures on Exs. A1 and A2 are not tallying with his signatures in the affidavits filed in support of the applications in I.A. No. 460 of 2010 and I.A. No. 125 of 2011. Since the petitioner having admitted his signatures on the documents referred to above, contended that they differ from one another, the Court below came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not in the habit of putting signatures uniformly, and having come to such a conclusion, felt that no purpose would be served in sending Exs. A3 and A5 to handwriting expert for opinion, and no exception can be taken thereto, particularly when the Court under Section 73 of the Evidence Act, 1872, is empowered to compare the signatures of the petitioner on the various documents. At any rate, there is other evidence available on record through which the dispute involved in the suit can be decided. In the above view of the matter, this Court finds no reason whatsoever to interfere with the order under revision in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There is no merit in the civil revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________ JUSTSICE N.V. RAMANA Dated: 20th August, 2011 IBL