ORDER:

This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 14.02.2022 dismissing the petition in I.A. No.273 of 2021 in O.S. No.132 of 2019 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tekkali, filed by the defendant under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to send Ex.A.1-suit promissory note to an expert for an opinion as to whether figure ‘1’ (one) was altered as figure ‘7’ (seven) with different ink in the column, at the left top side of the promissory note, used to mention the amount in figures, and whether the ink of the numerical figure 50,000/- in that column and the ink which is used to fill the other part of the written text of the promissory note under Ex.A.1 are different.

02. The petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of the principal amount of Rs.7,50,000/- with interest based on a promissory note dated 15.10.2015 against the defendant. The defendant filed a written statement denying the suit transaction and the suit claim and further stating that he borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- from the scribe of promissory note, by name Korada Ravindra Kumar, in the year 2012 and at that time he handed over three signed promissory notes and one cheque at the instance of the scribe and that the scribe filled the blanks of one promissory note, wrote the figures as Rs.1,50,000/- at the beginning in the second promissory note, but refused to write anything on the third promissory note and the cheque. He further pleaded that subsequently, he repaid the total amount borrowed along with interest to the scribe, but the scribe returned only one filled in promissory note, saying that the remaining two promissory notes and the cheque were misplaced and would be returned when they were found. He further pleaded that he got issued a legal notice through Sri K.Subash, Advocate, demanding the scribe to give back the remaining two promissory notes and the cheque and then the scribe promised to return when they were found. It is further pleaded that after receipt of summons in this suit, he came to know that the scribe, in collusion with the plaintiff and attestors, got filed the suit using the second promissory note by altering the already written figures of the amount Rs.1,50,000/- as Rs.7,50,000/- and that the suit promissory note is void and invalid due to material alteration. He further pleaded the other facts which are unnecessary to be referred here for the purpose of dealing with the present petition.

03. Later, the defendant filed I.A. No.273 of 2021 reiterating his defence taken in the written statement and seeking an opinion of an expert as noted above. The petition was opposed by filing the counter of the plaintiff, denying the material allegations and further stating that the defendant admitted his liability in the cross-examination of the plaintiff/ P.W.1, but now filed the petition with false and inconsistent pleas and that if at all the figures are changed, the amount in words are not disputed.

04. After hearing both parties, the trial court dismissed the petition accepting the contention of the plaintiff that the amount mentioned in words is not challenged and therefore, no purpose would be served by sending the documents to an expert for opinion of the alteration in the figures only. The trial court further observed that the best evidence available for the defendant is the attestors and the scribe who were present at the time of execution of the promissory note, since he contended that he actually borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- only and number ‘1’ was altered as number ‘7’, and that without ascertaining the facts from their evidence, this petition is filed by him only to drag on the case and cause delay in disposal of the suit.

05. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant submitted that the trial court erred in proper