( 1 ) CIVIL revision petition No. 3549/1992 is directed against the order of the learned Second Additional District Munsif, Vijayawada in I. A. No. 613 of 1992 in O. S. No. 1263 of 1987 allowing the application of the defendant for sending the suit promissory note to a private expert for determining the age of the ink used by the attestor and the scribe in the suit promissory note.

( 2 ) ALTHOUGH no reasons are given in the order impugned in this revision, evidently the same reasons given by the learned District Munsif on an identical application filed earlier LA. No. 1452 of 1991 which was allowed on 24-1-1992 weighed with him in allowing the present application. In the circumstances, it is necessary to refer to the earlier application for the purpose of ascertaining the reasons.

( 3 ) THE suit itself was filed by the petitioner-plaintiff on the strength of a promissory note, ex. A1 dated 11-6-1983 alleged to have been executed by the defendant for Rs. 16,300. 00. The defendant in his written statement admitted the execution, but plead- ed that the suit promissory note was not supported by consideration; because of the business transactions between the plaintiffs and the defendant s families, the promissory note came to be executed. It was also further pleaded that the execution of the suit promissory note was in Burrepalem village in Guntur district and therefore, the Court of District Munsif at Vijayawada lacks territorial jurisdiction to have seisin of the matter. The further allegation made was that the attestation was done not at the time of execution, but it was done subsequently in order to confer jurisdiction on the District Munsifs Court at Vijayawada. After the evidence of both sides was over, when the suit was posted for arguments, two interlocutory applications were filed on behalf of the defendant, to recall P. Ws. 2 and 3 -- the attestors -- for further cross-examination. P. W. 2 is no other than the husband of the plaintiff and P. W. 3 is a stranger. The plaintiff figured as P. W. 1. Although both the applications were opposed by the plaintiff, they were allowed by the learned District Munsif. Subsequently as P. W. 2 did not attend the Court for cross-examination, his evidence was directed to be eschewed from consideration. P. W. 3 was further cross-examined pursuant to the order made in the interlocutory application.

( 4 ) THEREAFTER, on 2-12-1991, I. A. No. 1452 of 1991 was filed to send the suit promissory note to a Government Forensic Expert for the purpose of ascertaining the age of the ink used by the attestor and scribe. That application was allowed on 24-1-1992 by the learned District Munsif by a reasoned order. The Government Forensic Expert, it appears, has expressed his inability to undertake the responsibly due to pressure of more important work entrusted to him by the Government. In those circumstances, the second application I. A. No. 613 of 1992 was filed for identical purpose for sending the document to a named private expert at Allahabad.

( 5 ) AFTER filing the present revision petition, presumably by way of abundant caution, I. A. No. 18275 of 1992 was filed to condone 189 days delay in filing the revision petition against the order in I. A. No. 1452 of 1991 (C. R. P. SR No. 61610 of 1992) in O. S. No. 1263 of 1987. On that application, notice was served on the opposite side.

( 6 ) THE reasons given by the learned District Munsif for allowing the application are that:". . . . . TO the normal vision, the signature of the executant and the hand-writing in the blanks in the body of the pronote are written with the similar ink pen, whereas the signature of the attestor was with a different ink. Since the very contention of the defendant is that the plaintiff has fabricated the signature of the attestor at the time of filing the suit, and the pronote was executed in his village which is not within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, it became a crucial fact in issue to ascerta