O R D E R:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Order dated

26.04.2022 in I.A.No.373 of 2022 in O.S.No.2 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.

02. Heard Sri Puspha Leela, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the material available on record.

03. The Petitioner is the Defendant and the respondent is the Plaintiff in O.S.No.02 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.

04. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent filed O.S.No.2 of 2019 with false allegations against him by filing the columns in Ex.A.1- Promissory Note, dated 15.02.2017. He did not execute the suit promissory note in favour of the respondent. The petitioner joined in the chit run by the brother of Savani Kasaiah namely Savani Venkateswarlu and at the time of chit transaction, the said Savani Venkateswarlu obtained a blank promissory note from the petitioner and the chit transaction was completed about 3 years ago. Later, in view of the land dispute in respect of the property between the Savani Kasaiah and the petitioner, the said Kasaiah and Venkateswarlu colluded together and taking advantage of the possession of the blank promissory note, got filed the said suit through the respondent. Therefore, it is just and necessary to send Ex.A.1-Promissory Note to the handwriting expert to ascertain the age of link for the signatures of the petitioner on the said Promissory Note.

05. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court below erred in dismissing the petition for sending the suit promissory note for expert opinion without giving cogent reasons. The Court below failed to consider that the respondent filled the blanks in the suit promissory note, which was handed over to the friend of the respondent, and due to that reason, it is just and necessary to send Ex.A.1 Promissory Note to the Expert to ascertain the age of the ink used by the respondent. As there is a plea taken by the petitioner in the Written Statement that the respondent filled the blanks on the signed promissory note, the Court below ought to have allowed the petition for determining the age of ink used by the respondent in the promissory note. From the beginning, the petitioner is contending that he never borrowed any amount from the respondent and never executed any promissory note in favour of the respondent and the suit promissory note is a rank forgery, and as such, the intention of the petitioner to send the document for determining the age of ink used on the promissory note is genuine and necessary for proper adjudication of the matter. He further submits that with the advancement of Science and Technology, the determination of the age of ink with accuracy is now possible and if it is scientifically established that there is a reasonable gap between the age of two inks, certainly that finding will help the petitioner to establish his defense. Therefore, he prays to allow the present Civil Revision Petition.

06. The case of the respondent/plaintiff is that the petitioner borrowed an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- from him and executed a suit promissory note in his favour, after receipt of cash consideration in the presence of the attestors and scribe. In spite of several requests made by the Respondent, the petitioner did not choose to clear off the debt due under the promissory note, and as such, the respondent got issued a registered legal notice on 02.11.2018, but in spite of the notice, the petitioner did not choose to repay the debt due to him. Therefore, the Respondent filed the above said suit against the petitioner.

07. It is the further case of the respondent/plaintiff that thereafter the Petitioner filed I.A.No.373 of 2022 in O.S.No.2 of 2019 to send the suit Promissory Note-Ex.A.1 to the handwriting expert to ascertain the age of link used for the signatures of the petitioner on the said promissory note. The trial Court, after hearing both the counsel, and on consideration of the facts and c