TANGEDUPALLI ABDUL HAMEED Vs. C RAMESH YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notice before admission was ordered by this Court on 18-07-2005. It is stated that the other side had been served and proof of service was also filed.

(2.) Sri Aripulla, the learned counsel representing the revision petitioners, the defendants in the suit, would contend that the application in I.A.No.312 of 2005 in O.S.No.3 of 2003 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur, was filed to send the suit promissory note to the handwriting expert for comparison of the ink used for the signatures of the revision petitioners/defendants and the other portion of the promissory note. The learned counsel would submit that the learned Judge erred in dismissing the application and observing that the application is not maintainable. The learned counsel also would contend that in the facts and circumstances of the case and also in the light of the clear language of Order 26 Rule 10(A) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the learned Judge should have allowed the application instead of dismissing the same.

(3.) The application in I.A.No.312 of 2005 in O.S.No.3 of 2003 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur, was filed for sending the suit promissory note to the handwriting expert for comparison of the ink used for the signatures of the revision petitioners/defendants with the other portion of the promissory note. The learned Judge, after recording certain reasons, dismissed the said application.