HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4154 of 2009 ORDER: The only grievance of the petitioner, herein who is the election petitioner in the Court below, is to the effect that in dismissing the application filed by him under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, where he sought to send the signatures of the respondents herein on various documents to the hand writing expert for opinion by way of comparison. The Court below did not find favour to accept the request but however, virtually gone into the merits and made several comments on merits which reads as follows: “After careful hearing of the contentions, I came to a conclusion that the signature on affidavit evidence of the petitioner is different to that of the cross-examination deposition dated 29/10/2008 but the respondent/petitioner put his signature in Telugu and English on deposition of cross-examination dated 29/10/2008. So, it is clear that the respondent/petitioner can put her signature in Telugu and English. As the respondent/petitioner herself admitted the signatures on affidavit evidence, vakalat, and petition and so also on the deposition of cross- examination on 29/10/2008 and the respondent/petitioner is able to put her signature in Telugu and English the variations in between her signatures on the petition, vakalat and affidavit evidence will not cause any prejudice to the petitioner/respondent will not effect the case of the petitioner to settle the issue involved in the main petition. Hence, the opinion of the expert in respect of the signatures of the respondent/petitioner is not necessary to decide the issue involved in the main petition.” Hence, the grievance is to the effect that such observations could not be made and those observations should go against him at the time of final disposal. Hence, the learned counsel is justified in making such complaint, especially, when the interlocutory applications are being disposed of, the merits could not have to be gone into and it may be gone against him. In view of the same, the Court below is directed to delete all those observations and also further directed that while disposing of the main OP on merits none of these observations would be taken into consideration or need not be relied on for any other purpose. Subject to above, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ B.PRAKASH RAO, J Date: 25th September, 2009 SKM