ORDER:

The present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the Orders dated 16.12.2019 passed in I.A.No.1216 of 2019 in O.S.No.128 of 2016 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa, Kadapa District.

2. Heard Mr.Solomon Raju Manchala, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Sashidar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent.

the present Civil Revision Petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant submits that the Order under Revision is illegal and constitutes irregular exercise of jurisdiction by the learned Trial Court. He submits that a specific stand was taken in the written statement that the petitioner/defendant had never executed the alleged promissory notes i.e., Exs.A.1 to A.3 and to substantiate the same, the application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act was filed. He submits that if the alleged promissory notes (Ex.A.1 to A.3) are sent to the expert for determining/ascertaining the age of ink, age of petitioner?s/defendant?s signatures, age of paper and other writings, the truth would come out. He further submits that the opinion of the expert would aid in determining the >lis? between the parties. He further submits that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent by sending the documents for expert?s opinion. He submits that the learned Trial Court instead of considering the matter in the correct perspective and allowing the application, erroneously rejected the same on untenable grounds. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel seeks to allow the Revision Petition by placing reliance on the decision of a learned Judge in Labbala Sundara Rao Chowdary vs Voona Ramachandra Gupta1.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, supported the Order under Revision by placing reliance on the decisions in V.Siva Kameswara Rao vs N.Satyanarayana2 and Surabhi Kishan Rao vs Bejhjanki Indira3.

6. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, perused the material on record and gone through the decisions relied on by them. On an analysis of the rival contentions with reference to the decisions referred to supra, the point that falls for consideration by this Court is whether the Order under Revision warrants interference by this Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case?

1 Civil Revision Petition No.2646 of 2019

2 Civil Revision Petition No.382 of 2019

3 Civil Revision Petition Nos.3111 and 3153 of 2014

7. Before dealing with the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant, it may be appropriate to mention here that as seen from the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.1216 of 2019, the petitioner/defendant issued four blank promissory notes and four blank cheques with his signatures on 22.07.2010, as a surety/security for the immovable properties mortgaged in favour of the respondent/plaintiff in relation to a loan transaction between one Mr.V.Mallikarjuna Rao and 3 Others and the respondent/plaintiff and that the said promissory notes were marked as Exs.A.1 to A.3. The stand taken, as seen from the said affidavit is, that on 01.12.2013 the petitioner/defendant had not executed any promissory notes and in the year 2016, the respondent/plaintiff prepared Exs.A.1 to A.3 and in those circumstances sending the said exhibits to expert?s opinion for determining the age of the petitioner?s/defendant?s signature, the age of the ink of his signatures, age of paper of Exs.A.1 to A.3 and other writings etc., is essential to prove his case. Thus, it would be seen that there is no dispute with regard to signatures on Exs.A.1 to A.3. Under the said circumstances, the learned Trial Court while considering the matter with reference to Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, rejected the application filed by the petitioner. Though the learned counsel submits that the said view of the learned Trial Court is erroneous and seeks a direction in te