ANANTHULA RAMESH BABU Vs. SAMA VIJAY KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff, challenging the order, dated 16.04.2019, passed in I.A.No.236 of 2019 in O.S.No.64 of 2016, by the Principal District Judge, Karimnagar, whereby, the petition filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Section 45 of the Evidence Act requesting to send the promissory notes under Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4, vakalat of the respondent/defendant, written statement, served summons, notice, warrant of attachment and panchanama containing the signatures of the respondent/defendant, to the handwriting expert for comparision of the signatures of the respondent/ defendant, was dismissed.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for both the sides and perused the record.

(3.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff would contend that in the written statement, the respondent/defendant denied his signatures on Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4 promissory notes. The subject interlocutory application was filed to send the admitted signatures of the respondent/defendant on the vakalat, written statement, served summons, notice, warrant of attachment etc., along with the disputed signatures on Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4 promissory notes to the handwriting expert for examination and report. The Court below erroneously held that the Court itself can compare the signatures of the respondent/defendant on the available material record under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act and can arrive at a right conclusion as to the genuineness of the document basing on the evidence on record. Expert opinion is very much necessary to render substantial justice to the parties to the litigation and ultimately prayed to set aside the order under challenge and allow the Civil Revision Petition as prayed for.