The main legal point established in the judgment is that when an alteration in a document is visible to the naked eye and there is evidence of intention to prolong the legal proceedings, there may be no necessity to obtain expert opinion on the alteration.

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 24.01.2017 made in I.A.No..13910 of 2014 in O.S.No.11343 of 2010 on the file of VII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. The petitioners are defendants 1 & 2, the 1st respondent is the plaintiff and the 2nd respondent is the 3rd defendant in the suit. The 1st respondent filed suit in C.S.No.921 of 2006 (transferred to City Civil Court and re-numbered as O.S.No.11343 of 2010) on the file of the VII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai against the petitioners and the third respondent for recovery of money based on two promissory notes dated 12.02.2004. The petitioners and the second respondent filed written statement during November 2007 and are contesting the suit. Trial commenced, first respondent examined himself as P.W.1 and marked documents. He was cross examined by petitioners with regard to suit promissory notes. The first petitioner examined himself as D.W.1. When the suit was posted for further evidence, the petitioners filed I.A.No.11379 of 2014 under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC to reject the plaint on the ground that the plaint is not maintainable and is barred by limitation. The first respondent filed counter affidavit denying the averments made in the application. The learned Trial Judge, considering the averments in the affidavit and counter affidavit, dismissed the application. The petitioners filed I.A.No.13910 of 2016 under Order 26 R10 (A) r/w Section 151 CPC to send original plaint document No.2 hand written document dated 12.02.2004 to the office of the handwriting expert, forensic department, Mylapore, Chennai for expert opinion with regard to alteration of the year 2002 or 2004 by appointing Advocate Commissioner for carrying the document and submit the report of the expert.

3. According to the petitioners, Ex.A.2, promissory note is handwritten and the year in the said promissory note is altered as 2004 from the original year 2002. The first respondent as P.W.1 in cross examination has admitted the alteration and therefore the said document must be sent to handwriting expert through Advocate Commissioner to get expert opinion with regard to alteration of the year 2002 or 2004. According to the petitioners, to save limitation, the first respondent has altered the year in Ex.A2 as 2004 from the original year 2002.

4. The first respondent filed counter affidavit and denied all the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. The first respondent stated that the promissory note was written by the petitioners only. The earlier application in I.A.No.11379 of 2014 filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the petitioners to reject the plaint on the ground that the original writing as 2002 was altered as 2004 to save limitation and plaint does not disclose any cause of action was dismissed by the Trial court on 23.09.2014. Only to prolong the suit, the present application is filed and prayed for dismissal of the application.

5. The learned Judge, considering the averments in the affidavit, counter affidavit and Exs.A1 & A2 promissory notes dismissed the application holding that the date in Ex..A2 promissory note was over written and this can be witnessed through naked eye and the points regarding alteration and overwriting could be elicited from P.W.1 by cross examining him and the first petitioner/first defendant did not deny the execution of the document.

6. Against the order of dismissal dated 24.01.2017 in I.A.No.13910 of 2016 in O.S.No.11343 of 2010, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned Judge did not properly appreciate the admission of PW1 with regard to alteration of the year 2002 and expert opinion with regard to alteration/addition of the year 2002/2004 would help the court to decide the case and secure justice. The impugned order passed without hearing the second respondent/third defendant amounts to violation