COMMON ORDER :

The Civil Revision Petition No.1926 of 2022 is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 18-01-2022 dismissing the petition in I.A.No.7 of 2020 in O.S.No.333 of 2017 on the file of the Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, filed under Order XVI Rule 1 and 2 r/w section 151 CPC by the petitioner/defendant to summon Sri K.Rama Krishna as witness on his behalf who is scribe of Ex.A1 promissory note. 2. The Civil Revision Petition No.1950 of 2022 is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 28-07-2022 dismissing the petition in I.A.No.106 of 2022 in O.S.No.333 of 2017 on the file of the Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, filed under Section 45 and 73 of Indian Evidence Act by the petitioner/defendant to send Ex.A1 promissory note to expert for opinion.

3. Since both the petitions arose out of two Interlocutory Applications filed in the same suit and they are based on the same set of facts and contentions, the common order is passed.

4. Heard Sri A.Sai Naveen, learned counsel representing Sri Venkateswarlu Sanisetty, learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. The contention of the petitioner is that the suit promissory note is denied by the defendant and therefore to prove the defence, it is necessary to examine Sri K.Rama Krishna who allegedly scribed the suit promissory note and his examination would prove that he simply affixed his signature as a scribe on the promissory note scribed by another person. Therefore, the petitioner contended that it is also necessary to get the contents of the promissory note to be examined by a hand writing expert to prove that it was not scribed by K.Rama Krishna.

6. The petition was opposed by the respondent/plaintiff stating that the petitions were filed at the belated stage of the arguments to protract the litigation and that even as per the defence, he handed over the blank signed promissory note admitting his signature and there would be no purpose achieved by examining the proposed witness.

7. After hearing both parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition observing that he did not mention these facts at all in his evidence and that he could have brought the witness to give evidence on his behalf by securing the presence of the witness since it is not his contention that though he called witness, he denied his request. It is also observed that since the defendant pleaded that he has given blank signed promissory note and blank signed cheques, it is not necessary to grant the relief asked. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is very much necessary to examine him as a witness and also to establish that the contents of the suit promissory note were not written by him and that except subscribing his signature as a scribe promissory note, he did not actually write the promissory note. The trial Court mentioned in its order that the suit is coming up for further evidence of the defendant.

8. The defendant has taken defence in the written statement that the attestors and the scribe are kith and kin of the plaintiff and they conspired in filing the suit. He specifically pleaded that the scribe of the suit did not scribe/write the suit promissory note and that hand writing in the suit promissory note in O.S.No.333 of 2007 that is the present case, differs from the actual hand writing of Sri.Kokuravuri Rama Krishna and that it is the burden of the plaintiff to prove that the pronote is in the hand writing of the scribe named in it. Inspite of such pleading taken, the scribe was not examined by the plaintiff. No step has been taken by the defendant also to take the hand writing of Sri.K.Rama Krishna and get it examined with the dispute hand writing in the suit promissory note by an expert after filing of his written statement since the year 2017. It is only at the stage after completing his evidence, these applications were filed. Though a petition seeking opinion an expert can be