The respondent filed O.S. NO.2? of 2004 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili, for recovery of certain amount on the strength of a promissory note, dated 24-08-2001. The petitioner filed his written statement and pleaded that his signature was forged upon the promissory note. The trial of the suit commenced. The evidence on behalf of the respondent was closed. When the recording of evidence of the petitioner herein is in progress, he filed IA No.67 of 2005 under Section 45 of the Evidence Act (for short the Act), with a prayer to send the promissory note for the opinion of an expert in relation to the signature on it. Through order, dated 28-4-2005, the trial Court dismissed the I.A. Hence, this civil revision petition.

2. Sri K. Sarvabhouma Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the view taken by the trial Court that the application was filed at a belated stage cannot be countenanced. He further contends that mere fact that the Court can undertake comparison of signatures etc., as provided for under Section 73 of the Act, by itself, does not disable the petitioner herein from filing an application under Section 45.

3. Sri P. Rajasekhar, the le