ORDER : Defendants in the suit filed the above civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order, dated 08.03.2022 passed in I.A.No.167 of 2020 in O.S.No.305 of 2018 on the file of learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Eluru. 2. Respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.No.305 of 2018 for recovery of amount on the strength of promissory note. 3. Petitioners/defendants filed written statement and inter alia contended that the suit promissory note is a forged and fabricated one and that no consideration was passed under said document. 4. Pending the suit, I.A.No.167 of 2020 is filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send Ex.A1, promissory note, dated 11.08.2017 to handwriting expert for opinion, after comparison of disputed signature with admitted signatures. 5. In the affidavit, filed in support of the petition, it was contended inter alia that the suit promissory note is a forged one and no consideration was passed under it. Hence, application was filed to send the document to handwriting expert for opinion. 6. Respondent/plaintiff filed counter opposing the said application. 7. The trial Court by order, dated 08.03.2022, dismissed the application, against which the present revision is filed. 8. Heard both sides. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants submits that in the written statement, petitioners/defendants raised a plea regarding forgery of Ex.A1 and to prove the same, the present application is filed to send Ex.A1 to handwriting expert to compare the disputed signature with the admitted signature. He would further submit that the trial Court without considering the said fact, dismissed the application. Thus, he prays to set aside the order under revision. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff on the other hand would contend that DW1 during his cross-examination denied his signature on the vakalat and nothing was stated in the affidavit regarding the admitted signature of the petitioners/defendants. Thus, he prays to dismiss the revision. 11. Now the points that arise for consideration are : 1. Whether interlocutory application filed by defendants with a prayer to send the document to expert without mentioning the authentic documents containing the admitted signatures is permissible? 2. Whether, the order of court below warrants interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India? 12. The suit is filed for recovery of amount on the strength of Ex.A1, promissory note. The petitioners/defendants raised specific plea that the suit promissory note is forged and fabricated. 2. Whether, the order of court below warrants interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India? 12. The suit is filed for recovery of amount on the strength of Ex.A1, promissory note. The petitioners/defendants raised specific plea that the suit promissory note is forged and fabricated. To substantiate the said plea, petitioners/defendants filed the present application. However, except seeking sending of Ex.A1 to handwriting expert, no averment was made in the affidavit regarding the document containing admitted signature available, to send the same to the handwriting expert. No purpose will be served by ordering such an application unless the person praying the court to send the document for expert asserts about availability of admitted signatures. 13. After the court orders the petition, the litigants are coming up with a prayer to send the signature scribed in the open court or to compare with the signatures available on vakalat, suit summons and written statement to the expert. In fact the signature scribed in the open court, vakalat, suit summons and written statement cannot be termed as admitted signature. Post filing of the suit, there is every likelyhood of defendant disguising the signature. 14. In Chennadi Jalapathi Reddy vs. Pratapa Reddy and another, 2019 (14) SCC 220 the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows : “24. There is another reason why we are not inclined to place reliance on the opinion of the expert DW 2. From a perusal of his report, Ext. B-2, it is evident that barring the signature on a written statement in a prior suit, all other admitted signatures of the first defendant are of a period subsequent to the filing of the plaint (i.e. on the vakalatnama and the written statement filed in this suit itself). These admitted signatures taken subsequent to the filing of the suit could not have been used as a valid basis of comparison, and their use for this purpose casts serious doubt on the reliability of the entire report, Ext. B-2. Thus, the report was liable to be discarded on this ground alone, and was wrongly relied upon by the High Court.” 15. In P. Padmanabhaiah vs. G. Srinivasa Rao, 2017 (2) ALD 368 , learned Single Judge of composite High Court held as under : 8. B-2. Thus, the report was liable to be discarded on this ground alone, and was wrongly relied upon by the High Court.” 15. In P. Padmanabhaiah vs. G. Srinivasa Rao, 2017 (2) ALD 368 , learned Single Judge of composite High Court held as under : 8. The defendant who is seeking comparison, by an expert, of his signatures on vakalat and written statement on one hand with the disputed signatures, which are on exhibits A1 and A2 on the other, has not produced into the Court below, along with his petition, any authentic documents like registered sale deeds or any other registered documents containing his signatures of a contemporaneous or any other period. The defendant has not even produced any other [unregistered] documents containing his signatures which are prior in point of time to exhibits A1 and A2. It is not his case that there are no such documents. It is settled law that the science of identifying thumb impressions is an exact science and does not admit any mistake or doubt. Nevertheless, the opinion of an expert in regard to genuineness or otherwise of signatures and/or hand writings is purely opinion evidence and such opinion evidence in regard to signatures and/or handwriting will not be considered as an opinion based on exact science as in the case of thumb impressions. In addition, it is necessary to observe that expert's opinion evidence as to handwriting or signatures can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence. In the well considered view of this Court, the defendant's signatures on the Vakalat and the Written Statement cannot be considered as signatures of comparable and assured standard as according to the plaintiff even by the date of the filing of the vakalat the defendant is clear in his mind about his stand in regard to the denial of his signatures on the suit promissory note and the endorsement thereon and as the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant might have designedly disguised his signatures on the Vakalat and the Written Statement cannot be ruled out prima facie. The view point being projected by the plaintiff that if the defendant is called upon to furnish his signatures in open Court, he might designedly disguise his signatures while making his signatures on papers in open court is also having considerable force and merit. The view point being projected by the plaintiff that if the defendant is called upon to furnish his signatures in open Court, he might designedly disguise his signatures while making his signatures on papers in open court is also having considerable force and merit. Unless the defendant makes available to the Court below any documents, with his signatures, of authentic and reliable nature more or less of a contemporaneous period, and unless such documents are in turn made available to the expert along with the suit promissory note, the expert will not be in a position to furnish an assured opinion, in the well considered view of this Court. Further, it is not in dispute that the defendant in his cross-examination has denied his signatures on his vakalat filed in the suit and also could not affirm or say for sure as to whether his signature on the affidavit filed in lieu of examination in chief is his signature or not. There is no point in sending to an expert the documents of doubtful nature and character and add one more piece of unreliable evidence and burden the record by wasting the time and money of the parties. When there are no signatures of comparable and assured standard on the material record before the trial Court, it is unsafe to obtain the signatures of the defendant in open Court and send the said signatures and also his vakalat and written statement to an expert for obtaining his opinion after comparison of the signatures thereon with the disputed signatures on the suit promissory note, as any such opinion obtained from a handwriting expert on such material is not going to be of any help to the trial Court in effectively adjudicating the lis more particularly in the light of the admitted legal position that expert's opinion evidence as to handwriting or signatures can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence. (emphasis is mine) 16. In Lakkapamula Rani vs. Manda Batasari, AIR 2022 AP 83 , A.P. High Court held as under : “When there are no signatures of comparable and assured standard on record before trial Court, it is unsafe to obtain signatures of party in open Court and send said signatures and also his vakalat and Written Statement to expert for obtaining opinion.” 17. Thus, in view of the expressions in the above judgments, defendant who is making application to send the document to expert to compare the signature should assert and file authentic documents containing his/her signatures along with I.A. Unless defendant/s produce the document/s containing authentic/admitted signatures, no purpose would be served by allowing such an interlocutory application. 18. Therefore, whenever a defendant in the suit files interlocutory application, seeking sending the document to expert for comparison of signature, the defendant shall aver in the affidavit about his/her admitted signatures, on authentic documents available for comparison. Without making available the admitted signatures, ordering interlocutory application, will not serve any purpose. 19. In the case on hand DW1, during his cross-examination, denied his signature on the vakalat. 20. In view of the above discussion since the petitioners/defendants failed to produce admitted signatures for sending the same to handwriting expert for comparison with the disputed signature on Ex.A1, the order of the Trial Court dismissing the petition does not brook interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, this revision is liable to be dismissed. 21. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.