JUDGMENT

1. Heard Sri T.Janardhan Rao, learned counsel for the revision-petitioner/defendant and Sri Chilukuri Karthik, learned counsel representing on behalf of Sri V.Nitesh, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff.

2. This civil revision petition has been filed by the revision-petitioner/defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the Order, dated 03. 04.2023, "Rejecting" the I.A.No.367 of 2022 filed by the revision-petitioner/defendant under Sec. 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in O.S.No.260 of 2017 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge"s Court, Chittoor.

3. The respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.No.260 of 2017 for decree, directing the revision-petitioner/defendant to pay the suit claim under promissory note together with future interest at the rate of 24% per annum and consequential reliefs.

4. The revision-petitioner/defendant in the written statement denied borrowing any amount from plaintiff. He also denied execution of any promissory note. He also pleaded that his signatures on the promissory note were forged and fabricated.

5. Both the parties lead evidence. After closure of the evidence, the revision-petitioner filed I.A.No.367 of 202