Akula Venkata Sesha Sai, J.

1. This revision, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by the defendant in OS No. 7/2011 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Kodad, assails the order dated 15.7.2014 passed by the said Court, dismissing IA No. 101 of 2014 filed by him under the provisions of Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act (for short "the Act"). Heard Sri J. Sreenivasa Rao, learned Counsel for petitioner, apart from perusing the material available before the Court. Despite service of notice on the Counsel for the respondent in the Court below, none appeared for the respondent.

2. The facts and circumstances leading to filing of the present revision are as under:

The respondent herein instituted OS No. 07 of 2011 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Kodad, against the petitioner herein, for recovery of Rs. 54,240/- together with interest on the foot of a promissory note said to have been executed by the petitioner herein.

3. In the said suit, the defendant/petitioner herein filed present Interlocutory Application No. 101 of 2014 under Section 45 of the Act, praying the Court below to send the promissory note and receipt dated 2.2.2009 (Ex. A1) along with other documents containing the signatures of the petitioner to the Handwriting Expert for comparison of the signatures on the promote. Resisting the said application, the plaintiff/respondent herein filed a counter. The learned Junior Civil Judge, Kodada, by virtue of an order dated 15.7.2014, dismissed the said Interlocutory Application filed by the petitioner herein.

4. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision has been filed.

5. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the order under challenge in the present revision is erroneous, contrary to law and opposed the very spirit and object of the provisions of Section 45 of the Act. The learned Counsel further submits that if the application filed by the petitioner herein is ordered, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent herein. It is further contended that the reason assigned by the Court below that the application is belated one cannot be sustained and it is nextly contended by the learned Counsel that in the event of sending Ex. A1 for an Expert, the genuineness of the document would come out, which would be helpful for the Court below to arrive at just conclusion. It is further contended that in fact there is no delay in filing the application. To booster his submissions and contentions, the learned Counsel for petitioner placed reliance on the judgments reported in Janachaitanya Housing Limited, Hyderabad v. Divya Financiers, Guntur, 2008 (4) ALD 339 (DB); Medikonda Rama Swarajyalakshmi v. Posina Sathyanarayana and another, 1999 (1) ALD 210 and Velaga Sivarama Krishna v. Velaga Veerabhadra Rao, 2009 (1) ALD 265 : 2009 (1) ALT 379.

6. In the above background, now the question that emerges for consideration of this Court in the present revision is whether the Court below is justified in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner herein under Section 45 of the Act and whether the same warrants any interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

7. The information available before this Court discloses that the respondent herein filed OS No. 07 of 2011 on 24.1.2011 before the Court below for recovery of amount on the foot of a promissory note alleged to have been executed by the defendant/petitioner herein. The defendant/petitioner herein filed a Written Statement on 8.4.2011 denying the averments in the plaint and stating that the suit promissory note is a false and fabricated document and it does not contain the signature of the defendant/petitioner herein. It is noteworthy that during the course of cross-examination of PW 1 on 11.8.2013, PW 1 categorically deposed that he has no objection if Ex. A1 is referred to Handwriting Expert for comparison and report. In the instant case, as stated by the learned Counsel for t