1. Heard Mr. Rajesham, the Counsel representing the revision petitioner.

2. This Court ordered notice before admission on 20.7.2005 and granted interim stay for a limited period, which had been subsequently extended. The respondent was duly served and none represents the respondent.

3. The revision petitioner filed I.A. No. 575 of 2005 in O.S. No. 8 of 2002 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur to send the suit promissory note to the Government Laboratory, Hyderabad for the purpose of ascertaining the age of the signature with the other handwriting of the suit promissory note. The application was dismissed on the ground that there is no possibility of comparison of age of the ink in view of using ball point pen ink in drafting the pronote and hence no purpose would be served by sending the suit pronote to handwriting expert for comparison with regard to the age of the ink. The learned Judge also observed that the application is not maintainable. Though wrong provision of law had been quoted inasmuch as specific prayer had been prayed for, for sending the suit pronote to handwriting expert to ascertain the age of the signature and the age of the ink in the remaining por