ORAL ORDER:

The petitioner is defendant in the suit O.S. No. 261 of 2001 filed by the respondent herein on the file of the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam for recovery of money based on a pro-note.

As per the plaint averments, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-from the plaintiff on 21.2.1999 for the purpose of his family necessities and to purchase a house and accordingly executed the suit pro-note in favour of the plaintiff. Based on the said pro-note, the present suit is filed.

Written statement was filed stating that the defendant never borrowed the alleged amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and he never executed any pro-note in favour of the plaintiff. He does not know who is the plaintiff. The alleged pro-note is a rank forgery. He does not know the attestor and the scribe of the alleged pro-note. The suit pro-note is fabricated and forged one without passing any consideration. The suit pro-note was materially altered and hence, the suit is liable to be rejected.

The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and also examined PW-2 on his behalf. The petitioner/defendant also examined himself as DW-1 and when it was coming up for further evidence, he filed an application in IA No. 170 of 2007 in OS No. 261 of 2001 under Sec.45 of the Indian Evidence Act for sending the revenue stamp got affixed by the plaintiff on the alleged suit pro-note dated 21.2.1999 for verification and opinion as to which year/period the said revenue stamp relates to, in the interest of justice.

He has not stated anything about the revenue stamp as to whether the said revenue stamp pertains prior to or after 1999 so as to enable him to lead the rebuttal evidence. When has stated so many things about the consideration, the plaintiff, signatures of the attestor and the scribe, etc., he has not stated anything about the date of the alleged period to which the revenue stamp belongs. Therefore, he may not be correct in saying that mere making a statement in the written statement about the forgery of the alleged pro-note, other particulars that the revenue stamp on the pro-note does not pertain to the year in which the pro-note is executed, but it was printed during subsequent years. When no such pleas were taken in the written statement about the genuineness or otherwise of the year of the printing of the revenue stamp, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for sending the revenue stamp for verification and for opinion as to which period it belongs. Even otherwise, the petitioner has not filed any material whatsoever as to the maintenance of the record by the Government Press about the printing of the revenue stamps. For the reasons aforesaid, I do not see any reason to entertain the Civil Revision Petition.

Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.