ORDER:

Defendant in suit filed the above revision against the order dated 07.09.2022 in I.A.No.148 of 2022 in O.S.No.105 of 2019 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of I Class at Chintalapudi.

2. Respondent herein, being the plaintiff, filed suit O.S.No.105 of 2019 for recovery of amount on the strength of promissory note.

3. Defendant filed written statement and is contesting the suit. In the written statement, defendant pleaded that plaintiff might have fabricated the promissory note for unlawful gain and he never borrowed the amount.

4. Pending the suit, defendant filed I.A.No.148 of 2022 under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act to send the promissory note dated 20.02.2018 to the expert for scientific investigation in respect of signature of the defendant.

5. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was contended inter alia that the suit promissory note dated 20.02.2018 is completely fabricated and his signature and the promissory note is forged and fabricated one and hence, the application is filed to send the promissory note to the expert for scientific investigation.

6. Respondent/plaintiff reported no counter.

7. By order dated 07.09.2022, trial Court dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, present revision is filed.

8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that in view of the plea raised by defendant in the written statement, the application is filed to send the document to the expert for comparison of the signature on the promissory note with the petitioner’s admitted signature. He would also contend that the trial Court failed to consider the same and dismissed the application in spite of the plaintiff reported no counter and hence, prayed to set aside the order of the trial Court.

9. The point that arise for consideration is:

Whether the trial Court properly exercised its jurisdiction vested with it and refused to send the promissory note to expert for comparison?

10. The suit is filed for recovery of amount on the strength of promissory note. Defendant by filing written statement raised plea of forgery and fabrication. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, petitioner prayed to send the promissory note for scientific investigation. Defendant shall disclose as to availability of his admitted signatures on authentic documents. Unless, the defendant filed documents containing admitted signatures, sending of documents for comparison does not arise. Pleading itself is not sufficient. Pleading should be supported by relevant documents.

11. In Chennadi Jalapathi Reddy vs. Pratapa Reddy and another1 the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows:

“24. There is another reason why we are not inclined to place reliance on the opinion of the expert DW 2. From a perusal of his report, Ext. B-2, it is evident that barring the signature on a written statement in a prior suit, all other admitted signatures of the first defendant are of a period subsequent to the filing of the plaint (i.e. on the vakalatnama and the written statement filed in this suit itself). These admitted signatures taken subsequent to the filing of the suit could not have been used as a valid basis of comparison, and their use for this purpose casts serious doubt on the reliability of the entire report, Ext. B-2. Thus, the report was liable to be discarded on this ground alone, and was wrongly relied upon by the High Court.”

12. In P. Padmanabhaiah vs. G. Srinivasa Rao2, learned Single Judge of composite High Court held as under:

8. The defendant who is seeking comparison, by an expert, of his signatures on vakalat and written statement on one hand with the disputed signatures, which are on exhibits A1 and A2 on the other, has not produced into the Court below, along with his petition, any authentic documents like registered sale deeds or any other registered documents containing his signatures of a contemporaneous or any other period. The defendant has not even produced any other [unregistered] documen