S. Palanivelu, J.—The petitioner is the defendant in O.S. No.125 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Bhavani. The respondent filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 98,600 from this petitioner on the strength of a promissory note executed by him on 10.7.2005. This petitioner filed the written statement contending, inter alia that as he stood as guarantor for his friend by name Rangasamy, who borrowed a sum of Rs.5,000 from the Finance Company run by the plaintiff and this petitioner put his signature and his left thumb impression on a blank pronote in which only numericals of Rs. 5,000 written at the top, and that the said Rangasamy discharged the loan. However, the plaintiff did not return the abovesaid blank pronote to the defendant and that the said document has been forged and fabricated, with material alteration as if, the defendant owes Rs. 85,000 to the plaintiff.

2. The petitioner filed the petition under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 151, CPC, praying the Court to refer the suit pronote to handwriting expert to compare the difference available in the thickness, clarity of ink used to placed in front of Rs. 5,000 and writing of th