ORDER
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. The respondent filed O.S. No. 170 of 1996, in the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, against the petitioner, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,22,483/-, on the strength of a promissory note. The trial of the suit commenced, and the cross-examination of the petitioner herein was also completed. At that stage, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 1171 of 2004, with a prayer to send the promissory note to an expert, for opinion. The trial Court dismissed the application, through its order dated 6-12-2004. Hence, this C.R.P.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court dismissed the I.A., only on the ground that it was filed at a belated stage. Placing reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Medikonda Rama Swarajyalakshmi v. Posina Sathyanarayana 1999 (1) ALD 210, he submits that the delay by itself, cannot constitute the basis for dismissal of such an application. He also contends that the comparison of the signature on the promissory note, with admitted signature of the petitioner would help the Court, in arriving at its appropriate conclusion.
3. Learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner did not take any steps for about 8 years, from the date of filing of the suit, and only at the closure of evidence, he has come forward with the present application, with a view to protract the litigation. He contends that even now the petitioner did not indicate the signature, with which the signature on the promissory note is to be compared.
4. The suit was filed way back in the year 1996. For one reason or the other, it could not be disposed of for quite a longtime. As late as on 4-11-2004, the cross-examination of the petitioner herein, as D.W. 1, was concluded. In his written statement, the petitioner pleaded that he did not execute the promissory note. If he was serious about that plea, he ought to have filed an application for sending the document for examination by expert, before the trial commenced. The reason is that the report, if any secured from an expert, in this regard, shall have to be confronted to the witnesses examined on behalf of the respondent herein. Depending on the outcome of such a comparison, the respondent shall have to be given an opportunity, to take necessary steps. Having waited for 7/4 years, and till the conclusion of evidence on behalf of plaintiff and recording of his own evidence, the petitioner came forward with the present application.
5. Judicial notice can be taken note of the fact that with the passage of time, the pattern of signatures keeps on changing. The promissory note was of the year 1988. The petitioner did not indicate the documents, which contains any signature of contemporary period. If the promissory note is to be compared now, with his admitted signatures, there is bound to be a clear difference. From the judgment in Medikonda Rama Swarajyalakshmi's case (supra), it is not clear as to whether the application for sending the disputed document for expert opinion, was filed before the concerned witnesses were examined. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order under revision.
6. The C.R.P., is accordingly dismissed. Since the suit is of the year 1996, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the same, within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.