respondent/plaintiff to cancel the sale agreement, he had been giving evasive answer on trivial grounds. The attestor by name Venugopal was examined as PW2. He had also admitted his signature find a place in Sammatha Muchalika and the same was also marked as Ex.B1. But the respondent / plaintiff, who was examined as PW1, had denied his signature find a place in Sammatha Muchalika dated 19.06.2001. Under the said circumstance, the revision petitioner, being the defendant, has come forward with the above said petition to appoint a Court Commissioner to take photograph of the specimen signature of the respondent/plaintiff either in his or his counsel's presence and also to send the admitted signatures find a place in the plaint, sale agreement dated 19.06.2001 (Ex.A1) and vakalat so as to enable the handwriting expert to compare the disputed signature in the sale agreement dated 19.06.2001 (Ex.A1) with the signature of the respondent/plaintiff find a place in Sammatha Muchalika (Ex.B3) dated 19.06.2001. This petition was also contested by the respondent/plaintiff by filing his counter statement. After hearing both sides, the learned trial Judge had proceeded to dismiss both the applications in I.A.No.552 and 553 of 2013 on 09.10.2013. Having been aggrieved by the impugned order, the revision petitioner
