ORDER:

The present Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.101 of 2023 in O.S.No.160 of 2016, dated

01.03.2023, on the file of VII Addl District Judge, Ongole.

2. The petitioner herein is the defendant, respondent is the plaintiff. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit vide O.S. No.160 of 2016, for recovery of money basing on the pronote.

3. .The petitioner herein who is the defendant has filed his written statement and wherein he has taken a stand that the signature on the pronote is not that of him and the same is a rank forged one. At the stage of arguments the petitioner herein filed the present Interlocutory Application under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 151 of CPC, 1908, praying the court to send the suit promissory note i.e., Ex.A1 to the Hand Writing Expert i.e., Forensic Science laboratories, Amaravathi, for comparison with that of the petitioner/defendant’s contemporaneous and admitted signatures, on suit summons and notices served on the defendant. Opposing the said application the respondent/plaintiff filed counter. After hearing both parties the Court below dismissed the same. Aggrieved thereby the present Revision is filed.

4. Heard Sri M. Chalapati Rao, leaned counsel for the Revision petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration contended that, the petitioner/defendant initially filed application under Section 45 of Evidence Act, and as the same was not even numbered, he filed a Revision before this Court vide CRP No.210 of 2023 and this Court disposed of the same directing the petitioner to take original Interlocutory Application which is filed along with the Revision, for re- presenting it before the Court below and a direction to the Court below to number the said I.A., if it is otherwise in order, other than the objection regarding contemporaneous signatures and in so far as requirement of original document which is sought to be filed is concerned. The said order is placed on record and draw the attention of this court to the same. He further contended that, pursuant to the said directions the court below numbered the Interlocutory Application as I.A. No.101 of 2023. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that, along with the said Interlocutory Application the petitioner also constrainted to file another Interlocutory Application to receive the certified copy of the registered document in order to send the said document for comparison with the suit document. The said application is not even numbered and in the mean time the present Interlocutory Application has been dismissed on the ground that the signatures of the defendant on the suit summons vakalat and written statement cannot be referred for comparison and opinion in the absence of admitted signatures of contemporaneous period and draw the attention of this court to the impugned order relevant portion.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the document which is filed along with another Interlocutory Application is very much sufficient to treat the said document as contemporary period document and because the Court below has not numbered the said application that was not dealt by the Court along with this present Interlocutory Application. However, the petitioner is ready to file such a document. The petitioner has a good case before this Court in the present Revision and in the mean time if the suit is decided, the purpose of filing the Revision will be defeated and prayed to consider the Revision.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that, in one of the cases where the petitioner is the defendant the court below has sent the suit promissory note to an expert and where a report has been received stating that the petitioner’s signature on the pronote is not that of the petitioner herein. The present case on hand is also similar in nature and because the document could not be filed the rightful entitlement to send the