COMMON JUDGMENT:

Heard Sri K. Simhachalam, learned counsel for the petitioner in both the civil revision petitions.

2. The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.7 of 2021 pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Gajuwaka.

3. The plaintiff-respondent filed the suit for realization of the suit amount with interest @ 24% p.a thereon. The suit was filed based on the promissory note dated 25.04.2018 by the defendant-petitioner for an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- borrowed by him from the plaintiff-respondent.

4. In O.A.No.7 of 2021, the defendant/petitioner filed I.A.No.335 of 2023 to send the promissory note dated 25.04.2018 to the hand writing expert for comparing the petitioner’s contemporary original signature and thumb impression to be taken in the open court along with another original promissory note dated 28.02.2006 based upon which the another plaintiff had filed O.S.No.412 of 2019 against the defendant-petitioner.

5. I.A.No.335 of 2023 was partly allowed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka vide order dated 30.08.2023 as under:

“In the result, petition is partly allowed in sending the original promissory note in the main suit under this interlocutory application along with thumb impression to be taken in the open court to the expert and the rest of the relief claimed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed.”

6. Challenging the order dated 30.08.2023, the Civil Revision Petition No.1957 of 2024 has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

7. In O.S.No.7 of 2021, the defendant-petitioner filed another application I.A.No.366 of 2023, to send for the original promissory note dated 28.02.2016 from the Court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam in O.S.No.412 of 2019 to the court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka, for the purpose of comparing the contemporary original signatures and thumb impressions in the original promissory note by sending it to the hand writing expert.

8. I.A.No.366 of 2023 was dismissed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge at Gajuwaka vide order dated 20.03.2024, which order reads as under:-

“08. As per the record, the petitioner herein filed petition in earlier in I.A.No.335 of 2023 for the relief under Section 45 of the Indian evidence Act, to send the pronote of this case along with original promissory note in O.S.No.412 of 2019 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Visakhapatnam for the purpose of comparing the contemporary signatures and thumb impressions to be taken in the open Court and this Court partly allowed the petition as “petition is partly allowed in sending the original promissory note in the main suit under this interlocutory application along with thumb impressions to be taken in the open court to the expert and the rest of the reliefs claimed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed”. But, the petitioner filed the present petition again with the same relief of send for original promissory note in O.S.No.412 of 2019 which he is not entitled to, as already this Court dismissed the said relief in I.A.No.335 of 2023. Further, this court observed that the petitioner claimed in the present petition that the original pronote in O.S.No.412 of 2019 is contemporary promissory note to the present suit. But, nowhere admitted his signature on the said promissory note. Since, the petitioner did not admit his signature on the promissory note in O.S.No.412 of 2019 and this Court already gave finding to send for original promissory note in O.S.No.412 of 2019, the petitioner is not entitled for the said relief. Accordingly, the point is answered.”

9. Challenging the order dated 20.03.2024 C.R.P.No.1956 of 2024 has been filed.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the rejection of I.A.No.366 of 2023 by order dated 20.03.2024 is based on the order dated 30.08.2023 passed in I.A.No.335 of 2023. He further submits that the order passed in I.A.No.335 of 2023, was for sending the original promissory note in the