1. 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 sit for recovery of Rs.98,600/- from this petitioner on the strength of a promissory note executed by him on 10.07.2005. 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 pro-note, 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 above said blank pro-note 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 pro-note to handwriting expert to compare the difference available in the thickness, clarity of ink used to place 8 in front of Rs.5,000/- and writing of the amount in words with the other words used to fill up the pro-note relating to the address of parties and to give his opinion. In the affidavit, he has stated that originally, numericals "Rs.5,000/-" alone was entered in the pro-note, but the suit pro-note shows as if, it is for Rs.85,000/- and words in Tamil as "Rs.85,000/-" have been written subsequently and hence, age, thickness and clarity of the ink have to be compared by the handwriting expert.

3. The above said petition resisted by the respondent by filing counter affidavit, stating that it is false to state that the alteration has been affected in the suit pro-note from numericals 8 to 85; that the petitioner is belated one; and that only in order to drag on the proceedings, the petitioner has been filed.

4. Learned Principal District Munsif, Bhavani, dismissed the said application, by observing that referring to the pro-note to the handwritting expert would only drag on the proceedings, as there is no apparent mischief could be observed in the pro-note and the said question has to be decided at the time of trial by examination of witnesses and other evidence.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.V.Manoharan, would draw the attention of this Court to the decision of the Supreme Court in T.Nagappa v. Y.R.Muralidhar reported in 2008 (5) SCC 633, wherein, Their Lordships have dealt with an identical circumstance and held that the age of writing can be directed to be compared by an expert and that when the person, who delivered a cheque disputes the contents of the document, it is incumbent upon the Court to refer the same to the handwriting expert. The operative portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder:

"7. When a contention has been raised that the complainant has misused the cheque, even in the case where a presumption can be raised under Section 118(a) or 139 of the said Act, an opportunity must be granted to the accused for adducing evidence in rebuttal thereof. As the law places the burden on the accused, he must be given an opportunity to discharge it."

6. In the above said decision, an earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Kalyani Baskar v. M.S.Sampoornam reported in 2007 (2) SCC 258, is also referred to, in which, it is observed thus,

"The appellant is entitled to rebut the case of the respondent and if the document, viz., the cheque on which the respondent has relied upon for initiating criminal proceedings against the appellant would furnish good material for rebutting that case, the Magistrate having declined to send the document for the examination and opinion of the handwriting expert has deprived the appellant of an opportunity of rebutting it. The appellant cannot be convicted without an opportunity being given to her to present her evidence and if it is den