JUDGMENT 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the 1st petitioner/defendant under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the orders passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Chirala in I.A.No.134 of 2014 in O.S.No.74 of 2009 dtd. 12/8/2014 where in and whereby learned trial Judge dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner No.1 under Sec. 45 of Indian Evidence Act and refused to send suit promissory note to Hand writing expert Mr.Ashok Kashyap for comparison of age of ink. 2. The case of petitioner No.1/Defendant No.1 before the Trial Court in brief is that respondent has filed suit against him basing on promissory note. He submits that respondent has examined PWs 1 and 2 and his evidence was closed and thereafter suit was coming for his side evidence. As he pleaded in his written statement that PW2 was running Finance Company at Chirala and one Katta Suri Babu, who is working as IV-Class employee in V.S.R and Y.R.N.College approached Finance Company for a loan to meet publication expenses of the book, for which PW2 insisted the said Suri Babu to get third party surety and thereafter at the request of said Suri Babu he stood as surety and PW2 advanced Rs.40, 000.00 to Suri Babu, which transaction took place in the year 1995, at that time PW2 obtained two blank promissory notes, one from Mr.K.Suri Babu and another from him and that PW2 might have created forged recitals of the promissory note taking advantage of availability of blank promissory notes signed by him. 3. It is also the contention of the petitioner that he filed I.A.No.633 of 2013 to send the suit promissory note to A.P.Forensic Laboratory, Hyderabad to ascertain the age of ink in signature and remaining portion of the promissory note which petition was allowed and thereafter the suit promissory note was sent to A.P.Forensic Laboratory, Hyderabad for opinion but the same was returned without expressing any opinion stating that they are unable to give an opinion. Hence, petitioner filed petition to send promissory note to Private Expert at Delhi. 4. The respondent/plaintiff filed detailed counter before the Trial Court denying the averments in the affidavit of the petitioner. It is the contention of the respondent that petitioner has filed petition only to drag on the matter. Hence, petitioner filed petition to send promissory note to Private Expert at Delhi. 4. The respondent/plaintiff filed detailed counter before the Trial Court denying the averments in the affidavit of the petitioner. It is the contention of the respondent that petitioner has filed petition only to drag on the matter. He submits that hand writing expert is not competent to decide the age of ink and age of signature and there is no science to find the age of ink or signature in the document. He prays to dismiss the petition. 5. After hearing both sides learned Trial Judge, dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner by observing that first petitioner without adducing any evidence filing one petition or other only to drag on the matter and Government Expert already returned the document stating that it is not possible to ascertain the age of the ink. 6. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Trial Court, the present Revision petition has been filed by the petitioner stating that the orders passed by the Trial Court are irregular and failed to exercise jurisdiction vested on it. He prays to allow the petition. 7. I have heard both sides. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though suit promissory note ordered to be sent to Government Expert which was returned as there is no possibility of comparing age of the ink due to that, first petitioner filed another petition to send the same to Private Expert to ascertain the age of ink which is possible when it is sent to Private Expert. He would further submit that as per the defence of the first petitioner in this suit, comparing the age of the ink in the promissory note is necessary to arrive just conclusion in the suit. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that Trial Court after considering the request of the petitioner sent the suit promissory note to A.P.Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad for opinion with regard to the age of the ink, but the same was returned stating that it is not possible to ascertain the age of the ink. He would further submit that when there is no possibility to ascertain the age of the ink, once the signature in the promissory note is admitted by first petitioner, it is for him to prove his contention by adducing other evidence. He would further submit that when there is no possibility to ascertain the age of the ink, once the signature in the promissory note is admitted by first petitioner, it is for him to prove his contention by adducing other evidence. It is the contention of learned counsel for respondent that petition is filed by the petitioner only to drag on the proceedings and money suit of the year 2009 is pending till today. He prays to dismiss the petition. 10. Now the issue that emerges for consideration by this court is:- Whether the orders under challenge are sustainable or tenable and the same warrants any interference of this court under Order 227 of Constitution of India? Point:-Before going to the merits of the case, it would be beneficial to quote Sec. 45 of Indian Evidence Act which reads as under:- Sec. 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Opinions of experts : When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law or of science or art, or as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, or in questions as to identity of hand writing or finger impressions are relevant facts. Such persons are called experts. 11. The learned counsel for petitioner also relied on ratio laid down by this Court in Bhavanam Siva Reddy and two others Vs. Bhavanam Hanumatha Reddy and another in C.R.P.No.1590 of 2016 Judgment dtd. 30/12/2016 where in the Honourable Single Judge of this Court has elaborately discussed with regard to the evidentiary value of handwriting expert and relevant provisions dealing with opinion evidence. The said case is pertaining to dispute with regard to thumb impressions in the documents and then this Court held that sending the document to expert for comparison of thumb impressions is desirable to compare with other admitted thumb impressions and thereby allowed the petition. 12. The ratio laid down in the above referred decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case as in the present case request of the petitioner is to send the suit promissory note to private hand writing expert to compare the age of the ink. Admittedly the Trial Court on a petition filed by the first petitioner in I.A.No.633 of 2013 as per orders dtd. Admittedly the Trial Court on a petition filed by the first petitioner in I.A.No.633 of 2013 as per orders dtd. 12/7/2013 ordered to sent suit promissory note to hand writing expert for opinion with regard to the age of ink and then A.P.Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad has returned the document stating that it is not possible to ascertain the age of the ink, the petitioner has not placed any authority before this Court to show that there is possibility of comparing the age of the ink when he is said to be put his signature in the suit promissory note in the year 1995 in a suit filed in 2009 basing on the promissory note dtd. 29/4/2006. There are other modes to prove disputed signatures or handwriting in any document. Seeking opinion of hand writing expert is one of the modes. Even otherwise, learned counsel for the petitioner would fairly submit that Mr.Ashok Kashyap, private hand writing expert is no more and he requested to send suit promissory note to another private expert. When there is Government expert's opinion stating that there is no possibility of ascertaining the age of the ink in the document, when it is possible for the first petitioner to adduce other evidence to prove his contention and admittedly this petition is filed by the first petitioner before adducing his side evidence, it cannot be allowed. There are no grounds to consider the request of the petitioner. The learned Trial Judge rightly dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner after considering the fact that request of the petitioner was already considered and allowed the petition filed by the petitioner and thereafter Government expert returned the document stating that it is not possible to ascertain the age of the ink. Hence, there are no tenable grounds to interfere with the impugned order while exercising the supervisory jurisdiction by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 13. In the result, the Civil Revision petition is dismissed. The money suit of 2009 is pending. The Senior Civil Judge, Chirala is hereby directed to dispose of O.S.No.74 of 2009 as expeditiously as possible with in a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of orders of this Court in this present Civil Revision petition. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions if any, stands closed. The Senior Civil Judge, Chirala is hereby directed to dispose of O.S.No.74 of 2009 as expeditiously as possible with in a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of orders of this Court in this present Civil Revision petition. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions if any, stands closed. The interim stay granted if any is hereby vacated.