ORDER:

This revision, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed challenging the order, dated 28.02.2020, passed in I.A.No.329 of 2018 in O.S.No.269 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla, filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and Section 151 CPC to send the suit promissory note, dated 29.04.2010, along with the admitted signatures of the petitioner/defendant on the vakalat, written statement, notices served through Court and such other documents containing the admitted signatures of the petitioner/defendant to the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, for the purpose of comparison and giving report.

2. Heard Sri A. Sai Naveen, learned counsel representing Sri venkateswarlu Sanisetty, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant and Sri Bolla Venkata Rama Rao, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff.

3. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiff and the defendant for the purpose of convenience and clarity.

4. The case of the defendant, in brief, is as follows:

The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of amount on the basis of a pro-note, dated 29.04.2010 which is forged. Hence, the defendant wanted to get the signature on the suit pro-note examined by a handwriting expert with his admitted signatures and filed the application.

(b) The plaintiff filed counter opposing the petition as follows:

The defendant borrowed the suit pro-note amount in the presence of the attestors and scribe and duly executed the suit pro- note in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, the question of sending the document to the hand writing expert does not arise. The defendant signed as the 4th attestor on sale deed, dated 19.12.2001, as ‘A.CHANDRA SEKHAR GUPTA’. Similarly, he signed on the sale deed, dated 02.04.2002, as 5th seller on the 1st page and back side of the 1st and 4th pages of the document. Therefore, the above- mentioned documents may also be sent to the handwriting expert along with his admitted contemporaneous signatures. In the present case, the defendant has not produced his contemporaneous signatures before the Court even till date. In the absence of contemporaneous signatures, it is not possible to compare the disputed signatures on the pro-note with the signatures on vakalat, written statement or signatures obtained in open Court will be subscribed during the pendency of the suit. Since signatures on documents No.4 to 7 are in 2012, they were subscribed after execution of the pro-note, dated 29.04.2010 and it is revealed that they were executed with a mala fide intention to avoid the debt or to contradict the pro-note executed by the defendant. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. On contest, the trial Court allowed the petition on 28.02.2020 directing the defendant to produce original documents contemporaneous with the suit promissory note containing his signatures as “A.Chandra Sekhar Guptha’, in order to send the same to the expert for comparison by the next date of adjournment failing which the petition stands dismissed. On 06.03.2020, since the counsel for the petitioner reported no documents were with the petitioner, in spite of the conditional order, the Court dismissed the petition.

6. Aggrieved thereby, the defendant preferred this revision mainly contending that there is no much gap between the signature on the suit pro-note and the documents sought to be filed by the petitioner for comparison, and that the trial Court ought not to have directed the petitioner to produce the original contemporary documents with the suit promissory note containing the signature specifying as ‘A. Chandra Sekhar Guptha’ which is beyond the relief sought for by the petitioner. The petitioner sought to set aside the specific direction to produce contemporary document with signature as ‘A.Chandra Sekhar Gupta’ in the order in I.A.No.329 of 2018, dt.28.02.2020 and restore the order allowing the petition by setting aside order dt.0