ORDER This Civil Revision Petition is directed against order dated 29-11-2005 in an unnumbered I.A., G.R.No.2252 of 2005 in I.A.No.226 of 2005 in O.S.No.14 of 2003 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Rajam, wherein the request of the petitioner-defendant to send not only the suit document-Ex.A-1 and specimen signatures, but also to send the admitted signature available in the Court file to the handwriting expert for comparison and opinion, was rejected on the ground that already orders were passed in I.A.No.226 of 2005 with regard to sending of specimen signatures and other signatures and therefore, there is no need to pass orders on this petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for both sides and perused the records. 3. The petitioner herein is the defendant is O.S.No. 14 of 2003 filed by the respondent herein for recovery of amount said to be due under the suit pro-note, EX.A-1. The petitioner filed written statement contending that the suit pro-note is forgery. After settlement of necessary issues, the trial of the suit was taken up. While so, the defendant filed I.A. No. 226 of 2005 under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act to send the suit pro-note to handwriting expert for comparison of the signatures along with the petitioners specimen signatures that may be obtained in the open Court and also admitted signatures for comparison and opinion of the expert. The said I.A.No.226 of 2005 was allowed on 13-09-2005. Thereafter, the suit pro-note EX.A-1 was sent to the Government handwriting expert along with the specimen signatures obtained in the Court and they were returned by the handwriting expert on the ground that the suit pro-note contains the signature as D. V .M. Krishna Rao, whereas the specimen signatures are of D.V.M.K. Rao. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed G.R.2252 of 2005 for sending the admitted signatures of the defendant available in the court file to the handwriting expert. 4. As seen from the order dt. 13-09-2005 in I.A.No.226 of 2005, the learned Senior Civil Judge has already directed to send the suit pro-note, EX.A-1 to the handwriting expert along with the defendants specimen signatures, which may be obtained in the open Court and also his admitted signatures for comparison and opinion. 4. As seen from the order dt. 13-09-2005 in I.A.No.226 of 2005, the learned Senior Civil Judge has already directed to send the suit pro-note, EX.A-1 to the handwriting expert along with the defendants specimen signatures, which may be obtained in the open Court and also his admitted signatures for comparison and opinion. When the specimen signature obtained in the Court is so vastly different from the signature found on the suit pro-note-Ex.A-1, the former signed as D.V.M.K. Rao whereas later appearing as D.V.M. Krishna Rao, it is only natural that they are not com parables and the handwriting expert, therefore, returned the papers. It is not in dispute that the admitted signatures are available in the records. The learned Subordinate Judge has already ordered for sending of those admitted signatures also in the orders passed in LA.No.226 of 2005. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent plaintiff stated that the plaintiff has no objection if the admitted signatures of the defendant are sent to the handwriting expert for comparison with the disputed signatures on EX.A-1 , pronote. He further submitted. that filing of this application by the defendant before the trial Court is intended only to drag on the proceedings. However, as the learned Senior Civil Judge has already allowed I.A.No.226 of 2005 and ordered for sending the suit pro-note to handwriting expert for opinion and the said order not having been challenged, there cannot be any legal impediment for sending EX.A-1, suit pro-note, to the handwriting expert along with the documents containing admitted signatures of the petitioner-defendant. No useful purpose will be served by sending specimen signatures, which are obtained in the Court and those signatures are during pendency of the suit and when they are totally at variance with the disputed signature on the suit pro-note. 6. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 29-11-2005 in G R No.2252 of 2005 is set aside and the trial Court is directed to send the disputed document-Ex.A-1 to the Government handwriting expert along with the documents containing admitted signatures of the defendant. 7. The trial Court is further directed to take expeditious steps to dispose of the suit at an early date. 8. The Civil Revision Petition is ordered accordingly. No order as to costs. Interim stay granted on 02-01-2006 stands vacated.