Chatla Jaganadha Reddy & Anr. v. Vathada Durga Rao

Petitioners are defendants in the suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S.143/2008 on file of II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. During pendency of the suit and after examining themselves as DWs1 and 2, the petitioners/defendants filed an application I.A.630/2010 in O.S.143/2008 under Sec.45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send their signatures to the handwriting expert. In the affidavit filed in support of the said petition, it is stated that the plaintiff forged the signatures of the defendants in Ex.A1 with the help of their enemies, and hence it is necessary to send their signatures to the handwriting expert. The petitioners/defendants have requested to the Court below to compare their signatures with the summons served upon them, vakalatnama, written statement, adoption memo and the evidence affidavits of DWs 1 and 2 and Ex.D1 and send the same to the handwriting expert. A counter was filed in the said I.A. stating that the defendants have not stated the averments made in para-3 of the affidavit in their written statement and therefore, without making any pleadings in the written statement the defendants are not entitled to send their signatures to the handwriting expert. I am of the opinion that the so-called disputed signatures on the promissory note cannot be compared with the signatures of the defendants taken by the Court below on vakalatnama, summons etc. but such signatures can be compared with any contemporary document as admitted by the plaintiff. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the application filed by the petitioners/defendants is misconceived and the same is rightly dismissed by the Court below. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Dated: 25.02.2011 Dsr ________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J