1. The revision petitioner is the defendant in OS.No.228 of 2014 on the file of learned V Additional District Judge, Nellore. It is a suit based on 4 pro-notes said to have been executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff viz., 2 pronotes dated 04.02.2012 for Rs.10,00,000/- each and another pro-note of Rs.10,00,000/- on 09.03.2012 and another pronote of Rs.5,00,000/- on 13.08.2012 and that despite demands having failed to pay having issued cheque bearing No.374451 dated 17.06.2014 of Rs.50,00,000/- towards so called part payment out of it and the cheque later returned dishonoured and thereby entitled to the suit amount claimed of total Rs.58,00,332/- with interest on Rs.35,00,000/- from date of suit and for costs etc., is the sum and substance with supporting averments.

2. The defendant contested by filing written statement by denying the said averments with the say that the defendant never had any such necessity to borrow such huge amounts on the alleged dates. It was in relation to the venture of his son at Bangalore, the plaintiff’s son had some disputes and the plaintiff, his son and one Aluru Srinivas Reddy colluded together and created and fabricated the documents referred and relied in the plaint of the present suit and in another suit filed against the defendant’s son. The defendant is an agriculturalist and lives by its income and entitled to the benefit of Act No.4/38 otherwise and there is no cause of action for the suit hence to dismiss. Leave about other contentions, the main contention of defendant is those are fabricated documents to say he never admitted execution of pro-notes and signed or received of amounts thereunder and also giving of cheque in question.

3. In the factual scenario I.A.No.122 of 2018 filed by the defendant before the trial Court under Section 94(e), 151 CPC and Section 45 of the Evidence Act to send the disputed pronote to an expert to ascertain the age of the ink in the signatures of the petitioner and the recitals in the pro-notes by saying suit claim based on the so called pro-notes are fabricated documents and by misusing the transactions between the plaintiff’s son Venkateswara Rao in fabricating the suit pro-notes and thereby those are to be sent to expert to determine the age of the ink found in the signatures of him and of the alleged attestors and the recitals in the body of the pro-notes.

4. The counter filed by the plaintiff in opposing the petition before the trial Court is with contest of the petitioner/defendant borrowed amounts and executed the pro-notes. In the written statement he admitted the signatures but for contentions of plaintiff misused the transactions between the plaintiff and the son of the defendant, the suit pro-notes were executed in the year 2012 and after lapse of 6 years the age of the ink cannot be determined and even if such facility available, it cannot be sent for determination, in the cross examination of the defendant he admitted as DW.1 the signatures on the pronotes and that he is not in the habit of signing on blank pronotes and hence there is no need to sent suit pro-note to determine the age of the ink and placed reliance on the expression of this Court in Kambala Nageswara Rao Vs. Kesana Bala Krishna (2014 (1) ALD 521). The impugned order of the learned trial Judge is in dismissing the application with the observation that the contention of the defendant’s counsel of plaintiff fabricated the suit pro-notes by making use of blank signed pro-notes containing the signatures of the defendant in respect of transaction between the plaintiff and son of defendant Venkateswara Rao. It is observed of the contest of other side is there is no procedure to be determined the age of the ink and even if there is such facility it leads to several complications, that the ink might have been manufactured or pen might have been manufactured long back and it was used after long time that is before using the same. Due to lapse of 6 years it is not pos