CHENGA CHINNA REDDAIAH Vs. SHAIK KHALANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent filed O. S. No. 56 of 2005 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Rayachoty, against the petitioner, for recovery of certain amount, on the strength of a promissory note, of the year 2002. The petitioner filed written-statement, pleading inter alia that the promissory note was fabricated and forged. An issue was framed thereon.

(2.) THE petitioner filed I. A. No. 606 of 2006, under Order 26 Rule 10-A C. P. C. , with a prayer to send the disputed document for comparison by a Government Handwriting Expert. The I. A was allowed, and the disputed document, together with the specimen signatures of the petitioner, were sent for comparison. The Handwriting Expert insisted that the contemporaneous signatures of the petitioner be forwarded. The petitioner stated that there are no documents, of the year 2002, containing his signatures. The expert, in rum, returned the matter, expressing his inability. It was in this context, that the petitioner filed I. A. No. 420 of 2007, with a prayer to send the document to another expert. The respondent opposed the application. The trial Court dismissed the I. A. , through its order dated 6. 7. 2007. Hence, this C. R. P.

(3.) SRI S. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that, when there are no undisputed signatures of the contemporaneous period, the comparison, by the expert, becomes difficult, and even if undertaken, would be imperfect.