ORDER
Gopala Krishna Tamada, J.
1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 13-7-2007 made in I.A. No. 4 of 2005 in O.S. No. 67 of 2001 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad, whereby, the trial Court refused to send the suit promissory note dated 5-12-2000 to an expert for comparing the signature on the promissory note with the admitted signature of the defendant, who is the petitioner herein.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff instituted O.S. No. 67 of 2001 for recovery of money on the foot of the promissory note. At a stage when the trial was in progress, the defendant i.e., the petitioner herein, filed the present application stating that expert’s opinion is required for comparison of his signature, and the trial Court, as stated above, dismissed the petition.
3. Heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record.
4. In spite of the fact that the respondent-plaintiff was served with the notice, he has not put in his appearance either in person or through his advocate.
5. Evidently, it is an old suit of the year 2001 and the point involved in the suit is very simple. For comparison of any signature on the suit promissory note with the admitted signature, there is no necessity to send the suit document to the expert. Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act provides for comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved. Under the law, it is always open for the Court itself to compare the signature on the promissory note with the admitted signature of the defendant i.e., the petitioner herein to find out its genuineness. It is only when the Court is unable to come to a just conclusion on such comparison, then expert’s opinion may be required. The admitted signature of the defendant is always available with the trial Court because at the time when the defendant engaged his counsel, Vakalat would be filed by the counsel, wherein the defendant signs and the Court can always look into that signature and compare it with that of the suit promissory note. Hence, there is no need to refer the suit document to the expert’s opinion.
Hence, I see no merits in this Civil Revision Petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.