Important Point—There is also no requirement of having documents with signatures of a contemporaneous period for the purposes of comparison by an expert.

1. This is a civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the respondent-plaintiff assailing the order dated 25.02.2016 of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, passed in IA. No. 1174 of 2015 in OS. No. 324 of 2010 filed by the petitioner-defendant under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, requesting to send the vakalat and written statement containing his signatures along with the promissory note, exhibit A1, with endorsement thereon, exhibit A2, to a handwriting expert for comparison of the signatures of the defendant on vakalat and written statement on one hand with the signatures said to be of him on exhibits A1 and A2 and furnishing a report with opinion as to the genuineness or otherwise of the disputed signatures on exhibits A1 and A2.

2. I have heard the submissions of Sri K. Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner-plaintiff. Though the respondent-defendant is served with notice, none appears. I have perused the material record.

3. The facts as borne out by record and as per the submissions made before this Court, in brief, are as follows:

The plaintiff brought the suit against the defendant on the foot of a promissory note, exhibit A1, for recovery of money, inter-alia, contending that the defendant made a part payment and acknowledged the suit debt under exhibit A2, endorsement. The defendant, who is resisting the suit, inter-alia, contending that his signatures on exhibits A1 and A2 are forged filed the subject application with the afore-stated prayer. On merits and by the order impugned in this revision, the trial Court allowed the petition and directed the defendant to give his specimen signatures before the Court on 15.03.2016 to facilitate sending of the vakalat, written statement, exhibit A1-promissory note, with exhibit A2-endorsement thereon, and the specimen signatures that may be taken in open Court to an expert for examination and furnishing a report with his opinion. Aggrieved thereof, the plaintiff filed this revision petition.

4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff would submit that the defendant in his written statement admitted that there is cordial relationship between the parties since ten years prior to the suit and that the defendant during his cross-examination denied his own signature on the vakalat filed in the suit and could not say for sure as to whether his signature on the affidavit filed in lieu of examination in chief is his signature or not and therefore when the defendant himself is unable to say as to whether his signatures on vakalat and the affidavit filed in lieu of examination in chief are his signatures or not, the said signatures on the said two documents cannot be considered as standard signatures for comparison. He would further submit that the plaintiff is not admitting the signatures of the defendant on the vakalat and the written statement as his genuine signatures and that the direction of the trial Court to the defendant to give specimen signatures in the open Court on the date fixed by it is also erroneous as the defendant, who is contending that the signatures on exhibits A1 and A2 are forged signatures, if called upon to give his specimen signatures, would for sure designedly disguise his signatures in order to succeed in his defence and that in view of that possibility that the defendant may designedly disguise his signatures, no useful purpose would be served even if specimen signatures are taken in open Court and that such signatures taken in open Court cannot be taken as signatures of comparable standard and hence, the trial Court ought not to have passed the order impugned in view of the admissions gained by the plaintiff in the cross examination of the defendant.

5. I have perused the order of the Court below. It is true, the aspect as to whether the signatures are of comparable standard or not is an aspect to be decided by an expert. However, as per the settled legal positio