( 1 ) THE defendant in O. S. No. 183 of 2003 on the file of Principal junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, is the petitioner in the civil revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of india. The respondent herein filed suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) based on a promissory note. The petitioner filed written statement denying the execution of the promissory note or any liability for the suit amount. The matter went into trial. P. Ws. l to 3 were examined. At that stage, the petitioner herein. filed Interlocutory Application being i. A. No. 1382 of 2003 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (the Act for brevity), praying the Trial Court to send the suit promissory note, written statement and vakalat to Handwriting Expert for comparison of signature of the petitioner and opinion of Expert. By impugned order dated 17. 12. 2003, the learned Trial Judge dismissed the application on the ground that there are no bona fides in the Interlocutory application and the petitioner is trying to drag the matter.

( 2 ) SRI A. Rama Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order suffers from error apparent on the face of record and that it is perverse. He would urge that when the petitioner in the written statement categorically averred that he never borrowed any amount from the respondent and never executed promissory note, the Trial Court grossly erred in observing that the petitioner s written statement did not make any averments to that effect.

( 3 ) SRI P. Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent submits that when a disputed document is sent to government Examiner of Questioned documents or Handwriting Expert, the party seeking such relief under Section 45 of the Act cannot insist that the documents already filed before the Court should only be sent for comparison. He would contend that it is always open to the learned Judge to ask the petitioner to give the specimen signatures in the Court.

( 4 ) IN the written statement of the petitioner, the petitioner alleged in Para nos. 2, 3 and 4 as under. (2) This defendant submits that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff at any time and never executed any promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. (3) The defendant submits that he is running a business under the name and style of Satyasai Agro Tech at budumuru in Laveru Mandal of srikakulam District. (4) This defendant submits that the plaintiff created the false and frivolous promissory note and filed this suit only to harass the defendant.

( 5 ) BY impugned order dated 17. 12. 2003, the learned Trial Judge rejected the Interlocutory Application observing as under. It was nowhere contended by the petitioner in the written statement that the signature on the promissory note not belongs to him, he simply stated in his written statement that the plaintiff created the promissory note. The Advocate filed vakalat on behalf of the petitioner in the suit and written statement was also filed by the petitioner and P. Ws. l to 3 were examined and the plaintiffs evidence was closed and the matter is posted for defendant s evidence and after taking adjournments, the defendant filed this petition. Hence, I find the petitioner filed this petition only to drag on the proceedings of this case, there are no merits in the present petition. In the result, the petition is dismissed.

( 6 ) AFTER perusing para Nos. 2, 3 and 4 of the written statement together with extracted portion of the impugned order of the learned Trial Judge, I am convinced that there is a total misdirection with regard to facts. When the petitioner in the written statement contended that he never borrowed any amount nor he never executed any promissory note and that the plaintiff/ respondent created false and frivolous promissory note to file suit, it was not proper for the learned Judge to observe that the petitioner/defendant nowhere contended in the written statement th