- (1.)THIS Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 16. 4. 2008 passed in I. A. No. 97 of 2008 in A. S. No. 127 of 2007 on the file of the Principal district Judge, Kurnool, whereby the application filed under Section 45 of the indian Evidence Act (for brevity "the Act") read with Section 151 C. P. C. to send ex. B1 - receipt to the handwriting expert for comparison of the alleged signature of the respondent-plaintiff and ascertain his report, was dismissed.
(2.)THE matter is coming up for admission.
(3.)SRI S. Syam Sunder Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, would maintain that the learned Principal District Judge, Kurnool, had totally erred in dismissing I. A. No. 97 of 2008 in A. S. No. 127 of 2007 for the reason that this application was filed under Section 45 of the Act read with Section 151 CPC to send Ex. B1 receipt to the handwriting expert for comparison of signature and to such a case the provisions of Order XLI Rule 27 CPC cannot be made applicable. The counsel, while further elaborating his submissions, would also maintain that even if it is to be considered that when such an application is moved, the ingredients of Order XLI Rule 27 CPC are to be satisfied, in fact, the said ingredients are satisfied in the present case. Hence, in the light of the facts and circumstances, instead of sending the disputed document Ex. B1 to handwriting expert for the purpose of comparison of signatures, dismissing the petition cannot be justified. The learned counsel would also maintain that the decisions on which reliance was placed by the learned Judge are not relevant for the purpose of deciding the present application.