( 1 ) HEARD Sri Chandra Sekhar Rao, counsel representing the petitioner and sri Rajasekhara Rao, Counsel representing the respondent.

( 2 ) THE Civil Revision Petition is filed as against an order made in I. A. No. 546/2003 in o. S. No. 19/2003 on the fileof Principal Junior civil Judge, Srikakulam.

( 3 ) THE Revision Petitioner/ defendant in suit O. S. No. 19/2003 on the file of Principal junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam/ moved the application I. A. No. 546/2003 under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 praying for sending the documents - the suit demand promissory note along with signatures of the defendant on Vakalath and written statement/ to the Director, Forensic science Laboratory, Hyderabad for opinion for the reasons which had been specified in the affidavit filed in support of the application. It was stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application that the revision petitioner/defendant never borrowed any amount and never executed any promissory note and had never seen the plaintiff and in such circumstances prayed for the relief specified supra. The respondent/ plaintiff filed a counter in detail opposing the application. The learned Principal Junior civil Judge, Srikakulam had dismissed the application holding that the petitioner had filed the said application only with a view to drag the proceedings. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is preferred.

( 4 ) SRI Chandra Sekhar Rao, the learned counsel representing the Revision petitioner had committed that the impugned order cannot be sustained since there is specific denial of the very execution of the promissory note itself and at the stage of cross- examination of P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 the application was filed and the same was moved at the earliest point of time and hence the observations made by the learned principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam that the application could have been filed on the date of filing of Vakalath or at the stage of filing of the written statement definitely cannot be sustained. Even otherwise on the ground of delay an application for sending a particular disputed document to an expert cannot be dismissed. The Counsel placed reliance on a decision of this Court in medikonda Rama Swarajyalakshmi v. Posina sathyanarayana and another.

( 5 ) PER contra Sri Rajasekhar Rao, the learned Counsel representing the respondent had explained the scope and ambit of section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 and also had subm.-: ted that this is only at best the opinion evidence and when specifically the execution of the promissory note was denied, the burden is on the plaintiff and when the plaintiff is prepared to examine the relevant witnesses to prove the very execution of the promissory note in dispute, sending the documents in question to any expert for the purpose of comparison/ especially to compare the signatures on vakalath and written statement of the defendant would be wholly unnecessary. The learned Counsel also submitted that the learned Judge had exercised the discretion in a particular way and hence the said order need not be disturbed by this Court while exercising powers under Article 227 of the constitution of India. The Counsel also had placed strong reliance on Nallabothu Purnaiah v. Garre Mallikarjuna Rao (died) by. L. Rs. , bolisetti Venkateeswaraa Rao v. Nadakuditi venkateswara Rao and Ryali Kameswara Rao v. Bendapudi Suryaprakasa Rao and others.

( 6 ) HEARD both the Counsel.

( 7 ) IT is no doubt true that the observations made by the learned Judge that the petitioner could have filed this application on the date of filing vakalath or at the stage of filing written statement may not be sustainable observations. But however, the learned Judge had expressed the opinion that at the stage of cross-examination of P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 the application was filed only with a view to delay the proceedings and observing so the application was dismissed. In the decision referred (1) supra, it was held:"t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document