THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU CRP 217 OF 2010 Between: Garapati Sadhasiva Rao ...petitioner Vs. M.Venkateswarlu Naidu ..Respondent. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU Civil Revision Petition No. 217 OF 2010 ORAL ORDER This revision, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 09-12-2009 made in I.A.No.619 of 2009 in O.S.No.306 of 1999 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kavali. The petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. The respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.306 of 1999 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kavali for recovery of money on the basis of a promissory note, Ex.A-1, and the said suit is pending for the last 11 years. It appears that the defendant had filed Vakalat in the year 2001 and written statement in 2009 i.e., with a long gap of four years from the date of suit pronote to vakalat and also a gap of 13 years from the date of pronote to filing of written statement by the defendant. Apart from that both parties completed their evidence and the suit is at the stage of further evidence on behalf of the defendant. Considering this aspect, the court below, in view of the long gap between the disputed signature in Ex.A-1 and the admitted signature i.e., signature in the vakalat and the written statement of the defendant observing that even if the petitioner is permitted to take out the disputed signatures for comparison with the admitted signature the purpose will not be served and more over as the entire evidence in the suit was completed, dismissed the application. Aggrieved thereby, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that since the evidence of the defendant is not completed and the stage for arguments has not come up, the application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 is maintainable. Whereas, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the order passed by the Trial Court. Heard the learned counsel for both parties and perused the material papers available on record. I am of the considered opinion that the Trial Court has not committed any error calling for interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Admittedly, the promissory note alleged to have been executed by the defendant on 10-06-1996 and the suit was instituted in the year 1999. The defendant took two years time for filing his vakalat and 11 years for filing written statement. At this stage, after gap of 13 years from the date of suit pronote to till this day, the petitioner intends to send the disputed signature in Ex.A-1 pronote to the expert for comparing with the admitted signatures on vakalat and written statement. In this regard, the Trial Court after considering the aspect of gap of 13 years from the date of execution of pronote to filing of the present petition, rightly rejected the application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 25th MARCH 2010 *TSNR