O R D E R:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 15.02.2023 dismissed in I.A.No.650 of 2022 in O.S.No.260 of 2019 on the file of the court of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam filed under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act r/w Section 151 CPC to send Ex.A.1 suit promissory note to the Government handwriting expert to determine the age of the ink used in all columns in the suit promissory note Ex.A.1, and the signatures of the defendants on the revenue stamp over Ex.A.1.

2. The case of the petitioners is briefly as follows:

The respondent filed suit against the petitioners for recovery of Rs.5,53,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs.3,50,000/- basing on promissory note dated 02.01.2017.

3. The defendants filed written statement opposing the suit contending that the suit promissory note is fabricated and no amount was borrowed by the defendants from the plaintiff at any time and there was no necessity to borrow the alleged amount. It is further contended by the defendants that on 18.12.2018, while the 1st defendant was travelling in an auto from Revati centre to Koneru centre, the 1st defendant lost his original and photostat copy of the registered sale deed of the land bearing No.6162 of 2012 and four blank promissory notes containing the signatures of the defendants kept in a red colour gift cover and thereby a complaint was given by the 1st defendant before the Robertsonpet police station on 08.01.2019 through meeseva under an acknowledgment No.1520475080119. It is further pleaded that the younger sister-in-law of the 1st defendant by name Mungi Srilakshmi had dispute with daughter of the defendants and a suit was filed O.S.No.123 of 2019 and while the civil disputes were pending, taking advantage of the disputes, Mungi Srilakshmi, in collusion and connivance with the plaintiff, got fabricated the suit promissory note and filed the suit through the plaintiff who is her relative and further the scribe and attestors are also in collusion.

4. Under these circumstances, I.A.No.650 of 2022 was filed.

5. The petition was opposed by filing counter of the respondent/plaintiff opposing the petition and stating that it is an attempt to drag on the matter and there is no iota of truth in the allegations and moreover the 1st defendant admitted the signature in the cross examination held on 27.10.2022.

6. After hearing both parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition accepting the contention of the respondent/plaintiff. It is further observed that in the State of A.P., no technology is developed to determine the age of the ink and thereby no purpose would be served if the petition is allowed and when the 1st petitioner/1st defendant admitted the signature on Ex.A.1, there is no necessity to send Ex.A.1.

7. Aggrieved by the order, this revision petition is filed.

8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners, stated that in view of the decision of this High Court in Namineni Audi Seshaiah Vs Numburu Mohan Rao1, the observation of the trial Court is not sustainable. He further stated that it is premature to make observation regarding the admission of the 1st defendant while disposing of the petition. He further stated that determination of the age of ink helps the defendants in defending the suit.

9. Inspite of service of notice on the respondent, no appearance has been made.

10. In the case of Namineni Audi Seshaiah (supra), it is held at paras 13, 15 to 17 as follows:

“13. It is observed at para 12 even therefrom once the Apex Court expression is very clear that an expert opinion as to

1 2018(6) ALD 751

determine the age of writing of ink can be possible and to admit is relevant, it is premature to determine its evidentiary value as whether it can be basis or not and whether to serve as a piece of corroboration and if so to what extent is ultimately to be determined from the reasons assigned in the opinion of the expert as even opin