1. These revisions arise out of the dismissal of two applications filed by the petitioner/ defendant, seeking the reopening of his evidence and also for sending the suit promissory note Ex.A.1 for examination to a Handwriting Expert.

2. Heard Mr. A. Bhaskara Chari, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant and Mr. V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff.

3. The respondent herein filed a suit in O.S. No. 1263 of 2015 against the petitioner herein, for recovery of money on the basis of a promissory note dated 08.12.2012. The petitioner herein filed a written statement contending, inter alia, that he borrowed an amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- from a person by name Raghava Arjuna Rao on 13.08.2010 and also created a mortgage in his favour; that at the time of borrowal, the said Ragha Arjuna Rao took his signatures in a blank promissory note and a blank cheque; that though the entire mortgage debt was discharged by him, the said Raghava Arjuna Rao filed a suit in O.S. No. 63 of 2013; that the petitioner never borrowed any money from the respondent herein and that with the assistance of the said Raghava Arjuna Rao, the respondent fabricated the blank promissory note given by him and filed the present suit.

4. The trial Court framed issues and evidence on both sides was closed and the matter was posted for arguments on 11.11.2016. At that time, the defendant, who is the petitioner herein, filed 2 applications, one for reopening his evidence and another for sending the promissory note for examination by a Handwriting Expert. But both these applications were dismissed by the trial Court, forcing the petitioner to come up with the above revisions.

5. Interestingly, this is not a case where the petitioner denies his signature in the suit promissory note. His only case is that he signed a blank promissory note on 13.08.2010 and gave it to one Raghava Arjuna Rao and that the said promissory note was filled up by the respondent herein in June, 2014 to come up with the present suit. Paragraph 5 of the affidavit of the petitioner filed in support of the applications out of which the present revision petitions arise reads as follows:

6. I further submit that I signed on the empty promissory note and cheque in August, 2010 and handed over the same to the Sankarasetty Raghava Arjuna Rao. The plaintiff and Sankarasetty Raghava Arjuna Rao, the 2nd attestor and the scribe filled up the empty portion of the promissory note and cheque in the year June 2014. On specific verification the signature on the promissory note and the matter on Ex.A.1 promissory note clearly discloses the variation. As such, it is necessary to sent the Ex.A.1 promissory note to the handwriting expert for deciding the age of the ink used for putting signature and the age of the ink used for filling the matter of the promissory note as there is a clear variation of 4 years approximately between the age of the ink used for putting the signature and the age of the ink used for filling up the matter in the empty promissory note.

7. In other words the only purpose for which the petitioner wants to send the suit promissory note for examination by the Handwriting Expert is to show that the age of the ink was nearly 5 years old and not one year old, when the suit was filed.

8. But, prima facie, the attempt of the petitioner to establish the age of the writing, appears to be far-fetched. According to the petitioner, his signature was made on 13.08.2010 in the promissory note. But Ex.A.1 bears the date 08.12.2012. The suit was filed in December, 2015. The cheque allegedly issued by the petitioner and which bounced, was dated 02.07.2014. The returned cheque and the cheque return memo are filed as Exs.A.3 and A.4 The petitioner has not made any prayer for referring the age of the writing in the cheque for examination by the Handwriting Expert.

9. In any case, it is highly doubtful that it is possible for a Handwriting Expert to fix the age of the ink where the dispute