ORDER

Plaintiff in the suit filed the above revision against the order dated 15.03.2022 in I.A.No.28 of 2022 in O.S.No.766 of 2014 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam.

2. Plaintiff filed suit O.S.No.766 of 2013 against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.35,23,800/-

basing on promissory note dated 06.02.2022.

3. Defendant filed written statement and is contesting the suit. Defendant while admitting signature however pleaded fabrication, interpolation of words etc., In the written statement defendant elaborated the circumstances and would contend that in those circumstances and in all probabilities the promissory note could have been brought into existence. While explaining the other contents, defendant pleaded as follows:

“One Lakshmana Rao, who blindly believed the plaintiff fell into his trap, gave the said blank promissory note with the top amount column filled up to this plaintiff. Plaintiff fabricated the same and filed the suit. The trickery he played in fabricating the promissory note is he got the digit “1” interpolated between “2”and “0”and made the amount from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.21,00,000/- and that is why a clear difference in writing, alignment of digits is clearly seen even to a naked eye.”

4. Trial in the suit was commenced, plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and scribe of promissory note was examined as P.W.2. The scribe during the chief examination admitted scribing of Ex.A-1. During the cross examination, defendant‟s counsel put questions to P.W.2, which runs as follows:

“I suggest you that you or plaintiff or both of you put digit „1‟ in the gap between the „2‟ and the comma?

P.W.2 answered by seeing Ex.A-1 stated that he did not scribe Ex.A-1 and he scribe promissory note which is bigger than Ex.A-1. He further stated that “I have not seen the promissory note which I scribed, after scribing the same”.

5. In view of the said deposition of P.W.2, plaintiff filed I.A.No.28 of 2022 to direct the P.W.2 to attend before the Court to give his handwriting to send the hand writings along with hand writings on Ex.A-1 to the handwriting expert.

6. Defendant filed counter and opposed the application.

7. Trial Court by order dated 15.03.2022 dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed.

8. Heard Sri V.V.Satish, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri V.V.Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for respondent.

9. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that P.W.2 having admitted in the chief examination about scribing of Ex.A-1, denied scribing of Ex.A-1 and when it was confronted to him during cross examination. He deposed that he scribed promissory note, which is bigger than Ex.A-1. He would submit that since P.W.2 denied the very scribing of Ex.A-1, this application is filed to direct P.W.2 to give his handwritings and to send the same along with handwriting in Ex.A-1 to the expert and the trial Court erroneously dismissed the application.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent would submit that during the cross examination suggestions were put to P.W.2 and he deposed that he did not scribe Ex.A-1 and the promissory note scribed by him is bigger than Ex.A-1. He would submit that the very purpose of cross examination is to elicit truth and it is within the legal right to impeach the testimony of witness by such legally acceptable methods. He would also submit that when P.W.2 was cornered, he deposed as extracted supra and the application filed to send the document to expert is totally misconceived and prayed the Court to dismiss the revision.

11. Now, the point for consideration is:

Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, application filed by the plaintiff under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act r/w Section 151 of CPC to direct P.W.1 to attend before the Court to give his handwritings as in Ex.A-1 to send the same to the expert is permissible?

12. Unlike the Will, mortgage or gift deed, the promissory note is not a compulsorily attestable docu