ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the order dated 13.03.2024 passed in I.A.No.4 of 2024 in O.S.No.153 of 2015 on the file of Principal District Judge at Khammam.

2. The petitioner herein is the defendant in the O.S.No.153 of 2015 and respondents herein are the plaintiffs. The said suit is filed for recovery of money under Section 26 & Order-7, Rule-1 of C.P.C.. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent in O.S.No.153 of 2015 claims that defendant Nos.1 & 2 have approached the plantiff on 23.09.2012 and borrowed an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- and after receipt of the said consideration amount, the Defendant No.1 has executed a promissory note in favour of plaintiff on 23.09.2012 as collateral security and agreed to repay the same along with interest and Defendant No.2 stood as guarantor for the said transaction. Thereafter, plaintiff made several request for repayment of borrowed amount, but the defendants postponed the payment of borrowed amount on one pretext or the other. On 08.04.2015, the defendant No.1 has issued cheque vide bearing No.032722, dated 08.04.2015, drawn for Rs.42,00,000/- towards full and final settlement of the borrowed amount. Thereafter, plaintiff had presented the said cheque for encashment, but the said cheque as dishonoured with an endorsement as “Payment stopped by the drawer”, vide memo dated 09.04.2015. Aggrieved by the same plaintiff preferred OS No.153 of 2015 before the Principal District Judge, at Khammam.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner herein has filed IA No.3 of 2022 in OS No.153 of 2015 seeking a direction to send the Promissory note dated 23.09.2012 to Forensic Science laboratory, Red Hill, Hyderabad for determination of the age of ink of signature and the disputed writing in the body of the promissory note. The Trial Court dismissed the said IA No.3 of 2022 in OS No.153 of 2015. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners filed CRP No.155 of 2023 against the order passed in IA No.3 of 2022 in OS No.153 of 2015 and this Court on 11.10.2023 passed the following order:

“13. The above judgment is squarely apply to the instant case and the application filed by the petitioner is liable to be allowed for sending the expert to Forensic Science Laboratory for determining the age of the signature of the petitioner.

14. The unreported Judgment relied by the Court below passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Nallamilli Venkata Reddy Vs. Padala Venkata Reddy was not considered the Judgment in Namineni Audi Seshaiah Vs. Numburu Mohan Rao. The Judgment relied by the Court below is not apply to the instant case and the impugned order passed by the Court below is contrary to the Judgment passed by this Court in Namineni Audi Seshaiah Vs. Numburu Mohan Rao.

15. In view of the same, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and the petition filed by the petitioner is to be allowed.

16. In view of the above findings, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed by setting aside the Order dated 15.12.2022 passed in I.A.No.3 of 2022 in O.S.No.153 of 2015 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Khammam and consequentially allow the I.A.No.3 of 2022 in O.S.No.153 of

2015. There shall be no order as to costs.”

Thereafter, petitioner filed IA No.4 of 2024 in OS No.153 of 2015 under Section 45 of the Evidence Act R/w Section 151 CPC to send the promissory note to FSL, Red Hills, Hyderabad for determination of the tint of the ink with regard to signature and the disputed handwriting in the body. The Trial Court sent the promissory note, dated 08.01.2024to FSL, Hyderabad for determining the age of the ink of his signature of the disputed handwriting in the body, but the same was returned by the FSL, vide File No.Doc/GEN/2024/17, dated

17.01.2024, which reads as:

“With reference to the letter cited above, it is inform you that, it is not possible to offer any opinion on the Age of Ink/Age of signature and writing. Hence