M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order, dated 24-11-2015 passed in I.A. No.324 of 2015 in O.S. No.1532 of 2014 by the IX Addl. Senior Civil Judge, L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.

2. Petitioner herein is the defendant, whereas the respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S. No.1532 of 2014, which was filed for recovery of money on the foot of a promissory note.

3. Pending suit, the petitioner herein filed the above interlocutory application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short 'the Act') to refer Ex.A1-promissory note, dated 17-09-2011, to handwriting expert, Telangana State Forensic Science Laboratory, for comparison of his admitted handwriting with disputed signature on Ex.P1 and to ascertain whether the word 'Laksha' and number 1' is inserted with different ink on it. The said application was dismissed. Hence, this revision.

4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner herein that the petitioner denied the execution of the promissory note and also borrowing of amount on 17-09-2011. He further contended that the promissory note does not disclose the father's name of the petitioner and the promissory note was tampered and created by the plaintiff only for the purpose of filing the suit with an intention to harass the defendant and to extract some amount from him. The said so-called promissory note was written in different writings and in different pens and further the scribe name was not written in the said promissory note and the alleged 1st witness is close associate of plaintiff. Both are colluded with each other and got created the promissory note by forging the signature of the defendant. Taking advantage of this contention, the petitioner requested the Court to refer the disputed signature on Ex.A1 to the Director, Telangana Forensic Science Laboratory, for comparison with admitted signatures and opinion as to the genuineness of the signature and as to the interpolations in Ex.A1.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that no admitted contemporaneous signatures of the petitioner are available, by placing reliance on the judgment of this Court reported in M. Narsi Reddy v. Raghu Ram Naidu And Another 2015 (3) ALD 234. He further contended that it is observed by the trial Court in the impugned order that the petitioner himself admitted in the cross-examination the signature appearing on Ex.A1 is that of him by denying the other part of the writing in Ex.A1.

6. The present revision is filed challenging the impugned order on various grounds mainly on the ground that the interpolations in Ex.A1 are appearing to the naked eye and opinion evidence of the expert is the only evidence to disprove the signature of the petitioner on Ex.A1 and therefore, denial of opportunity to disprove the signature on Ex.A1 amounts to denial of justice.

7. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner can produce the documents containing the contemporaneous signatures, after passing the order, but the trial Court did not consider the same in a proper perspective and prayed to allow the revision setting aside the impugned order passed by the trial Court.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent while challenging the impugned order drawn attention of this Court to the deposition of D.W.1, wherein he made a categorical admission about signing of the document Ex.A1 and that no contemporaneous signatures of the petitioner on any documents are available for comparison and opinion and in such a case, the Court cannot exercise the powers under Section 45 of the Act to refer the promissory note for comparison of disputed signature with the contemporaneous admitted signatures and prayed to dismiss the revision.

9. The above interlocutory application was filed under Section 45 of the