ORDER:

The present Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the orders passed in I.A.No.92 of 2021 in O.S.No.191 of 2021, dated 25.11.2022, on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise)-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru. The petitioner herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the Plaintiff in O.S.No.191 of 2021, which was filed for recovery of money basing on a promissory note.

2. In the said Suit, the defendant got filed the present Interlocutory Application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, praying the Court below to send Ex.A1 Promissory Note, dated 22.12.2019 to the handwriting expert for the purpose of comparison with the admitted signatures.

3. To the said Application, the respondent/plaintiff filed counter denying the allegations inter alia contending that, as per the Rules contemporary signatures are to be filed before the Court below and as the petitioner failed to file the same and, therefore, the said Application cannot be considered and prayed to dismiss the Application.

4. The Court below after hearing the same, passed the impugned order dated 25.11.2022, dismissing the Application filed by the petitioner herein. Aggrieved by the same, the present Revision Petition is filed.

5. Heard Sri Mangena Sree Rama Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.P.V.N.V. Sastry, learned counsel for the respondent.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been raised in the grounds contended that, in the written statement, the petitioner/defendant has categorically denied about execution of the promissory note by duly contending that the suit document is a rank forged one and also it was contended that as on the date of execution of the suit promissory note, the defendant went on leave for a pilgrimage to Tirupathi. As such, there is no possibility of execution of the suit promissory note, dated 22.12.2019 and drawn the attention of this Court to the relevant portion of the written statement, which is placed on record.

He further contended that, the Court below went to the extent of observing that the defence taken in the written statement is false and drawn the attention of this Court to the observations so made by the Court below at para 9. He further submitted that, the observations so made in para 9 are nothing but deciding the suit itself and the same adversely affect the rights of the defendant in the main Suit.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that, the only reason for denying the Application to send the subject promissory note for the opinion of the handwriting expert is that there is no contemporary document to send to the expert and further the Court itself has compared the signature by stepping into the shoes of the handwriting expert and decided the signature of the defendant. He further contended that, in the present Revision, the leave application form bearing contemporary signature of the petitioner herein is filed and the same can be sent to the handwriting expert along with the suit promissory note for comparison and if the same is sent no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff.

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that, the Court can impose costs on the plaintiff while ordering the said Application, to compensate the prejudice, if any caused. Accordingly, prayed to consider the Revision Petition.

7. On the other hand learned counsel for respondent submitted that, the Court below has rightly dismissed the Application on the ground that no document pertaining to the contemporary period of the promissory note is filed for comparing the petitioner’s signature and in support of his contention he relied on the judgment in the case of P. Padmanabhaiah v. G. Srinivasa Rao in C.R.P.No.2121 of 2016 and accordingly, prayed to dismissed the Application.

8. Perusal of the record shows that the petitioner filed the present Application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, to send t