JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Goli G.V.S. Sai, learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in OS No.64 of 2020 on the file of the Court of the II Additional District Judge at Visakhapatnam. He filed the suit against the defendants/respondents for specific performance of contract to execute a regular sale deed in his favour and to put in physical possession of the plaint schedule property and for other reliefs. 3. In OS No.64 of 2020, the defendants filed written statement, inter alia, denying the execution of the sale agreement dated 07.05.2018 and raising the plea of forgery with respect to that agreement. 4. The defendants also filed IA No.314 of 2022 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, to send the sale agreement for opinion of the expert. 5. The plaintiff filed objection and contested the application. 6. The learned II Additional District Judge, however, by the order dated 22.10.2024, allowed the I.A., after recording that the suit agreement of sale dated 07.05.2018 could be send to the handwriting expert for comparison with the admitted signatures of the 1st defendant in the document being produced by the defendants with further directions as under vide Para 7 of the order dated 22.10.2024. "7. In the result, the petition is allowed. The petitioners/defendants particularly the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 is directed to produce her contemporary signatures in the documents, like Registered Documents, Bank Challans, Bank Application Forms, Cheque Books, etc., pertaining to the year 2018, before this Court, and also to pay the Expert Fee of Rs.6,000/- by way of Demand Draft. Upon such production of contemporaneous Documents and payment of Court Fee, the petitioner No.1/defendant No.1 is directed to appear before the Court, and to give her specimen signatures in the open Court in the presence of both Counsel. Thereafter, the Office is directed to send the disputed Agreement of Sale, the Documents containing the contemporary signatures of the petitioner No.1/defendant No.1, and her specimen signatures obtained in the open Court, to the Handwriting Expert i.e., A.P. State Forensic Science Laboratory, Mangalagiri, Guntur District, on payment of Process by the petitioners/defendants. Call on 26.11.2024." 7. Challenging the order dated 22.10.2024, the civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed. 8. Call on 26.11.2024." 7. Challenging the order dated 22.10.2024, the civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the defendants did not mention about the documents which contained their admitted contemporary signatures and consequently, learned Court is not justified in passing the order for comparison of signatures. He placed reliance in P. Padmanabhaiah v. G. Srinivasa Rao, 2017 (1) ALT 710 and in M. Pedda Vannur Swamy v. Chinna Vannur Swamy, CRP No.3138 of 2023 decided on 12.01.2024. No other argument was advanced. 9. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 10. In the affidavit, in support of the application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, the defendants inter alia mentioned specifically, 'I am ready to furnish my authorize signatures in contemporary documents as ordered by the Court for the purpose of comparison and to give opinion by the expert i.e., handwriting expert'. 11. The submission advanced is that those contemporary documents which allegedly contained the admitted signatures must have been filed alongwith the application or their description should have been made. 12. In the view of this Court, it is not so necessary in all the applications. Even in the absence of such description, if the Court finds that the comparison is necessary in view of the contents of the applications supported by the affidavit, the order can be passed with direction to produce those documents for comparison. The same has been done in the present case. While allowing the application, the Court has directed the 1st defendant to produce her contemporary signatures in the documents like registered documents, bank challans, bank application forms, cheque books etc., pertaining to the year 2018, before the Court, and also to pay the expert fee. Upon such production of contemporaneous documents and on payment of Court fee, the 1st defendant was directed to appear before the Court and to give specimen signatures in open Court in the presence of the both the Counsels. The office was directed, thereafter to send the disputed agreement of sale; the documents containing the contemporary signatures of the 1st defendant and, the specimen signatures obtained in the Court, to the handwriting expert for comparison. 13. The office was directed, thereafter to send the disputed agreement of sale; the documents containing the contemporary signatures of the 1st defendant and, the specimen signatures obtained in the Court, to the handwriting expert for comparison. 13. So, it is clear that the comparison will be made only after the 1st defendant files the contemporary documents. It is not that the order has been passed, without directing the 1st defendant to produce the contemporary documents the comparison is to be made by the expert. If the 1st defendant complies with the direction of the Court as aforesaid then only those documents will be sent to the expert. Otherwise no question of comparison. The direction therefore, appears to be justified. 14. In P. Padmanabhaiah's case (supra), also it was specifically observed by a Coordinate Bench that '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 alongwith 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. So the presence of the documents is required before the expert. Those documents, on being produced before the Court, can be referred to the expert. If the defendants fail to file those documents, such comparison before the expert will not arise. 15. In M. Pedda Vannur Swamy v. Chinna Vannur Swamy (supra), Para 9, upon which much reliance has been placed, reads as under : "The rule of prudence requires the Court to send the admitted and contemporary signatures of the person to expert for comparison and the Court has to take into consideration the tendency of human being in getting over the situation adverse to be in such circumstances the possibility of changing pattern, style of the signatures of by the defendant while putting his signature in open Court to distinguish his usual signature cannot be ruled out completely. When the signatures of the defendant on bank passbook, passport, sale deed were not sent to expert for comparison, the opinion of the expert cannot be taken into consideration and that too opinion of expert cannot over weigh the direct evidence, if the direct evidence available on record is cogent. When the signatures of the defendant on bank passbook, passport, sale deed were not sent to expert for comparison, the opinion of the expert cannot be taken into consideration and that too opinion of expert cannot over weigh the direct evidence, if the direct evidence available on record is cogent. So, unless contemporaneous signatures are available and send to expert, there is no possibility for expert to compare the signatures." 16. In the aforesaid judgment also, it has been observed that unless contemporary signatures are available and send to the expert, there is no possibility of expert to compare the signatures. 17. In the present case also, it is upon filing of the contemporaneous signatures in documents before the learned Court that the same shall be sent to the expert. 18. I do not find any illegality in the order. 19. No case for interference is made out in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 20. The civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 21. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.