Heard Sri C. Ramachandra Raju, learned counsel representing revision petitioner and Sri M.S.

Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel representing contesting respondent.

1. 2. This civil revision petition is filed as against an order made by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram, in I.A.No.1382 of 2005 in O.S.No.29 of 1997.

2. 3. The revision petitioner, first defendant in the said suit, filed an application I.A.No.1382 of 2005 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram, under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter in short referred to as "the Act" for the purpose of convenience) praying for the relief of referring the suit promissory note, dated 16.4.1994, to handwriting expert for the purpose of comparison of signatures of promissory note with admitted signatures and for opinion of handwriting expert as to the forgery or otherwise. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram, having formulated the point for consideration at para 6, recorded reasons in detail at paras 7 to 12 and ultimately came to the conclusion that the application is devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed the same without costs. Aggrieved by the said order, the said petitioner in the said application-first defendant had preferred the present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. 4. Sri C. Ramachandra Raju, learned counsel representing the revision petitioner had taken this Court through the contents of the order impugned in the civil revision petition and would maintain that the reasons recorded by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram, are totally unsustainable reasons. The counsel also would maintain that the learned Judge ought to have referred the suit promissory note for opinion of the handwriting expert, since the plaintiff had not chosen to get the document examined by handwriting expert despite the specific defence of the revision petitioner that the suit promissory note is a forged one. The learned counsel also would maintain that the learned Judge should have held that mere gap of five years in between the admitted signatures of the father of the petitioner and disputed signatures may not cause any change in the signature and the signature of the petitioner is available on the deposition, vakalat and written statement and these admitted signatures could have been sent for the purpose of comparison with the disputed signatures. The counsel also would maintain that the learned Judge ought to have taken the view that the failure on the part of the plaintiff in not asking for the opinion of the handwriting expert would create strong suspicion as against the case of the plaintiff and in this context the opinion of handwriting expert would play a crucial role in deciding the case. The counsel also would maintain that mere examination of the witnesses may not be a substitute for the opinion of the handwriting expert. The learned counsel made elaborate submissions relating to scope and ambit of Section 45 of the Act and also relied on certain decisions in this regard.

.5. Per contra, Sri M.S. Ramachandra Rao, the learned counsel representing contesting respondent had taken this Court through the relevant portions of the order under challenge in the present civil revision petition and also would further maintain that the suit was instituted in the year 1997 and

.after a lapse of about 8 years this application had been thought of under Section 45 of the Act. The counsel also would maintain that the learned Judge had dismissed the application not only on the ground of gap of years between the admitted signatures and the disputed signatures, but further had relied on certain decisions and had taken note of the moving of the application after a long lapse of time and ultimately dismissed the application. The counsel also would maintain that the opinion of expert is only opinion evidence and the Court also is empowered to compare the signatures to arrive at the just and proper conclusi