1. The three CRPs. in CRP.Nos.1023 to 1025 arise out of the common order passed by the trial court rejecting the application filed by the defendant in comparing the signature found in the promissory note whose genuineness was disputed by the defendant for assessment by handwriting expert. The claims under the three suits were to sums above Rs.3 lakhs in each suit.

2. In all the suits, the signatures found in the promissory notes were denied by the defendant and having regard to the relatively large sums of money which were sought to be claimed under the disputed documents, the defendant had thought of securing a handwriting experts opinion by sending the documents for comparison with the admitted signatures of the defendant and for obtaining the report of the handwriting expert. The trial Court rejected the petition on the ground that the defendant had not set out any details of the so called admitted document and in the absence of such information, it was not possible to countenance the plea raised by the petitioner.

3. The petitioner contended that having regard to the fact that the amount claimed under the promissory notes were substantially large sums, the petition