ORDER:

The defendant before the trial Court filed this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the correctness of order dated 17.10.2019 of learned Junior Civil Judge, Kotabommali in I.A.No.435 of 2019 in O.S.No.7 of 2019.

2. The respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit. The need for revision arose when the learned trial Court refused to forward Ex.A.1 promissory note to Government Printing Press, Nasik for determination of the year in which the revenue stamp affixed on the pronote was printed. O.S.No.7 of 2019 is a suit filed by plaintiff seeking for recovery of money based on the foot of a promissory note and for costs and such other reliefs. The essence of the plaint is that on 05.03.2016 defendant borrowed an amount Rs.10,00,000/- and executed the suit promissory note and thereafter, despite oral demands and a notice of demand, there was no payment. Therefore, the suit.

3. The defendant filed a written statement denying all the allegations made in the plaint. The essence of the written statement is that it was during November, 2009 defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- from plaintiff as a hand loan and it was at that time a blank printed pronote was used by plaintiff and on that signature of the defendant across the revenue stamp was obtained. It is thereafter stated that the defendant was running a chit in which plaintiff was one of the subscribers and it was agreed upon between the parties that the subscription to be paid by the plaintiff towards chit was to be adjusted as against the interest that was to be paid by the defendant. In that manner towards interest at the rate of Rs.12,500/- per month defendant paid Rs.1,75,000/- and thereafter, chit was closed during July, 2015. He then stated that from August, 2015 to October, 2016 for about 14 months defendant paid interest and plaintiff acknowledged them in a note book. Written statement further narrates about subsequent payments up to February, 2018. It was during the year 2018 plaintiff told the defendant that despite lapse of nine years, Rs.10,00,000/- debt was outstanding and demanded the defendant to secure gold ornaments as security. At para No.5 of the written statement, the description of the gold ornaments is mentioned then the defendant narrates about certain transactions between him and his own brother and his own intention to purchase the share of his brother in an immovable property and that required Rs.20,00,000/- for him and then the defendant to gather so much amount asked the plaintiff to sell away the gold ornaments and realize the money and arrange him an amount of Rs.35,00,000/-. Then during August, 2018, both the parties and others went to the jeweler and gold ornaments were sold and the jeweler paid Rs.24,935/- to the defendant and told that Rs.9,00,000/-, which was the balance due would be paid by him in few days to the plaintiff towards the complete payment of the debt. Subsequently, the plaintiff told the defendant that he received those Rs.9,00,000/- also. It is then stated that utilizing the earlier blank signed pronote plaintiff fabricated the promissory note. After narrating a few more facts the defendant sought for dismissal of the suit.

4. It is during pendency of such suit, while the trial commenced and for plaintiff, PW.1 gave evidence in chief and when the matter was coming up for cross-examination, the defendant after obtaining a few adjournments had come up with various applications. One among them is I.A.No.435 of 2019 in O.S.No.7 of 2019 filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act wherein the prayer is to send Ex.A.1 to the Government Printing Press for determination as to in which year the revenue stamp affixed to Ex.A.1 was printed. The plaintiff put in contest and challenged the prayer and filed a counter denying the petition mentioned allegations and stated that to drag on the proceedings this petition is filed. The petitioner admitted signature on Ex.A.1 pronote and