ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the orders dated 12.03.2019 in dismissing I.A.No.523 of 2018 in O.S.No.9 of 2016 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Koilkuntla filed under Section 151 CPC to permit the petitioner/defendant get the suit promissory note examined by an handwriting expert preferably a government handwriting expert with respect to the number of the year mentioned in the first line and also underneath the signature of the defendant on the suit promissory note for his opinion on the alterations made in the number of the year.

2. The suit is filed for recovery of the amount based on a promissory note allegedly dated 15.11.2013. The defendant filed written statement denying the execution of the suit promissory note and borrowal of the amount thereunder from the plaintiff and also contending that the suit promissory note is materially altered by changing the year 2012 to 2013 for the sake of saving limitation. The defendant further pleaded that after receipt of legal notice from the plaintiff before filing the suit, he met the plaintiff and that the plaintiff stated that he had unfortunately sent the notice to the defendant and thereby the defendant asked the plaintiff to return the promissory note, however the plaintiff told the defendant that the suit promissory note was already time barred and the same was noticed by the defendant since it was dated 15.11.2012 and therefore he did not demand the plaintiff to return the said promissory note. It is further pleaded that the son-in-law of the plaintiff by name Guddeti Venkata Rami Reddy and the defendant are working as teachers in Dornipadu Mandal and that the defendant borrowed Rs.50,000/- on 15.11.2012 from the plaintiff as his son-in-law introduced him to the defendant and the entire pronote debt was paid to the plaintiff within three years, but due to the friendship with the son-in-law of the plaintiff, the defendant did not demand the plaintiff to return the promissory note after the payment, however due to subsequent ill-feelings developed between the defendant and the son-in-law of the plaintiff, the suit promissory note was fabricated with alteration and the suit was filed to have wrongful gain and to harass the defendant.

3. In this backdrop, the defendant filed this petition in I.A.No.523 of 2018 and the petition was opposed by the respondent/plaintiff by filing counter stating that the petition is not filed under a proper provision of law as the same ought to have been filed under Order 26, Rule 10A CPC and also that the petition is highly vexatious since there is direct evidence about the execution of the suit promissory note. It is also contended that the petitioner/defendant did not challenge his presence at the time of execution of the suit promissory note and PW.2 also mentioned the date 15.11.2013 under his signature and therefore there is no need to send the suit promissory note to an expert.

4. After hearing both parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition observing that this petition was filed after taking a few adjournments at the belated stage of further hearing of the defendant only to drag on the proceedings by abusing the process of law. Insofar as quoting wrong provision of law, the trial Court observed that it is not fatal to the petition.

5. Having aggrieved by the order dismissing the petition, the petitioner/defendant filed this petition reiterating the contentions stated in the written statement and the petition.

6. The learned counsel representing the revision petitioner submitted that the material alterations are visible to the naked eye and it is obvious that the alternation was made just to save the period of limitation and that examination of the alteration in the year by determining the age of ink and also handwriting, the truth would come out and thereby the petitioner can prove his defence.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/plain