KORVI ROSAIAH Vs. MITTA SRINIVASA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revisions are filed by the defendant in O.S.No.27 of 2003 in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge at Nakrekal.

(2.) The respondent filed the suit for recovery of certain amount, on the basis of a promissory note against the petitioner. The petitioner filed a written statement denying the very execution of the promissory note. Therefore, the respondent filed LA. No. 169 of 2004 under Section 45 of the Evidence Act to send the vakalat signed by the petitioner and the promissory note for comparison, by an expert. A report has been received to the effect that the signatures on the vakalat and the promissory note are different from each other.

(3.) The respondent filed LA. No.285 of 2004 with a prayer to send the loan application of the petitioner made to the Primary Agriculture Co-operative Society, Nomula, so that it can be sent to an expert along with the disputed promissory note, for opinion. The LA. was allowed and the loan application of the petitioner was called for. Thereafter, the respondent filed LA. No.355 of 2004 to send the loan application and the promissory note for comparison to an expert. This application was also allowed. These two revisions are filed against the orders passed in LA. Nos.285 and 355 of 2004.