ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner herein/

defendant, aggrieved by the order dated 07.08.2024 passed in I.A.No.78 of 2024 in O.S.No.179 of 2013 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, at Peddapalli, wherein the application filed by the petitioner herein under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act seeking to send the document under Ex.A1/Promissory note to Truth Labs and Truth Finders, Hyderabad for expert opinion to ascertain the different writings and different inks under Ex A1, was dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent herein/plaintiff has filed the suit vide O.S.No.179 of 2013 seeking recovery of amount of Rs.2,50,000/- along with interest from the petitioner herein/defendant. In the said suit, the petitioner herein/defendant has filed I.A.No.102 of 2022 seeking to send Ex.A1/Promissory note to Central FSL, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad to ascertain material alterations and also age of ink and the said application was allowed vide order dated 17.10.2022 and in pursuance of the same, the CFSL, Hyderabad submitted report stating that it does not have the facility for determination of either absolute or relative age of ink. Thereafter, the petitioner herein has filed I.A.No.339 of 2023 seeking same relief i.e, for expert opinion on the age of ink, the writings and different inks used in writing as well as material alterations and the same was allowed by the trial Court vide order dated 10.11.2023. In pursuance of the same, the TSFSL vide letter dated 15.12.2023 returned the Ex.A1/Promissory Note stating that it is not possible to ascertain the age of Ink/age of writing and age of material alterations in Ex.A1/Promissory Note. Thereafter, the defendant has filed the subject I.A.No.78 of 2024 seeking to send document Ex.A1(promissory Note) i.e., to Truth Labs and Truth Finders, Hyderabad for expert opinion to ascertain the age of Ink Writing and Different ink used in Writing and material alterations in Ex.A1. The Trial Court vide order dated 07.08.2024 dismissed the subject I.A.No.78 of 2024. Hence the revision petition.

3. As seen from the material placed on record, it is seen that before filing the subject I.A.No.78 of 2024, the petitioner had filed two I.A.s i.e., I.A.No.102 of 2022 and I.A.No.339 of 2023 in O.S.No.179 of 2013 requesting the trial Court to send the disputed document i.e., Ex.A.1/promissory note for expert opinion, seeking similar reliefs and the same were allowed. In pursuance of the orders passed by the trial Court, Ex.A.1/promissory note was sent to TSFSL, Hyderabad and the TSFSL vide letter dated 15.12.2023 returned the Ex.A1/Promissory Note stating that it is not possible to ascertain the age of Ink/age of writing and age of material alterations in Ex.A1/Promissory Note. Inspite of the same, the petitioner has filed the subject I.A.No.78 of 2024 seeking similar relief i.e, to send Ex.A.1/promissory note to Truth Labs and Truth Finders, Hyderabad for expert opinion to ascertain the different writings and different inks under Ex A1. The Trial Court vide order dated 07.08.2024 dismissed the subject I.A.No.78 of 2024 on the observations that since it is reported by TSFSL that the age of ink cannot be ascertained, sending the document under Ex.A.1/ Promissory Note to Truth Labs and Truth Finders, Hyderabad, would be a futile exercise. The Trial Court further observed that the suit is of the year 2013 and if at all the Ex.A.1/Promissory Note is materially altered, the petitioner can prove the same under Section 87 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The contention of the petitioner is that the findings recorded by the trial Court are erroneous and that an expert opinion from Truth Labs and Truth Finders is essential to prove the defense regarding the alleged material alterations in Ex.A1. This Court does not find merit in the contentions of the petitioner. The trial court has rightly observed that further attempts to send the document for expert report would not serve any purpose, e