ORDER

U. Durga Prasad Rao, J.

1. The challenge in the CRP at the instance of petitioner/plaintiff is the order dated 02.07.2019 in I.A. No. 566 of 2019 in O.S. No. 163 of 2013 passed by learned V Additional District Judge, Rajamahendravaram, where under learned judge dismissed the petition filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 of CPC to reopen the matter for the purpose of summoning one Narkedimilli Ramagiri of Tanuku, who is the GPA holder of one Smt. Gudimetla Satya Prabha to produce certain registered documents in his possession which contain the signatures of the defendant to send to another expert for comparison with the signature of defendant in Ex. A1 pronote.

2. The parties in the present CRP are referred as they are arrayed in the suit.

3. The factual matrix of the case is thus:

(a) The plaintiff filed O.S. No. 162/2013 on the file of V Additional District Judge, Rajamahendravaram, against defendant for realization of Rs.34,26,667/- on the strength of pronote dated 08.08.2010 said to be executed by the defendant in his favour. The defendant in his written statement inter alia contends that he never borrowed amount from the plaintiff and executed suit promissory note and the same is a forged and fabricated document. A trial went on it appears earlier the defendant filed I.A. No. 2079 of 2017 to send Ex. A1 pronote to handwriting expert. The plaintiff filed counter contending that the defendant did not file any contemporaneous signature or public documents such as registered documents containing the admitted signatures of the defendant. It appears he also stated in his counter that if the court was inclined to allow the petitioner, it may send vakalat suit summons, postal acknowledgment card and written statement containing the signatures of the defendant to the expert. Accordingly, the suit pronote and aforesaid documents were sent to expert and he submitted his report. The plaintiff cross-examined the expert and when the suit was posted for arguments, at that stage, the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 566 of 2019 to reopen the suit for the purpose of summoning certain registered documents which purport to contain the admitted signatures of the defendant much prior to the date of pronote and the suit to refer them along with Ex. A1 to another expert.

(b) The defendant filed counter and opposed the petition contending that while the previous expert was appointed at the instance of the defendant, the plaintiff had ample opportunity to refer the documents containing the admitted signatures of the defendant to the previous expert but he did not avail the said opportunity. Therefore, the expert submitted his report with the aid of documents referred to him and at that stage also, the plaintiff did not file his objections against the opinion rendered by the handwriting expert. The plaintiff cross-examined the expert at length but could not elicit any material facts to discredit his opinion. In that view of the matter, the plaintiff at this belated stage of arguments cannot seek for appointment of a second expert. He further contended that without rejecting the report of the earlier expert on valid grounds, the court cannot appoint second expert. He thus prayed to dismiss the petition.

(c) The impugned order shows, the trial court having agreed with the contention of the defendant dismissed the petition.

Hence, the CRP.

4. Heard arguments of learned counsel for petitioner Sri T.V. Jaggi Reddy and learned counsel for respondent Sri M.V. Suresh.

5. Fulminating the order of the trial court, learned counsel for petitioner Sri T.V. Jaggi Reddy would argue that in the earlier expert petition the trial court obtained the signatures of the defendant in open court and referred them to the expert for comparison with the signature available on Ex. A1 except that the court has not directed the defendant to produce the documents containing the admitted signatures of the defendant contemporaneous to the suit pronote. Learned counsel would vehemently ar