THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3301 of 2010 25.03.2011 Between: B.Ramanamma And another. ...Petitioners And A.Venugopal Naidu ...Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3301 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioners are defendants in O.S.No.101 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti. The sole respondent (hereafter, the plaintiff) instituted the suit for recovery of money based on the promissory note executed by Battagiri Ranganayakulu. The petitioners are mother, brother of the deceased promissor. The trial commenced and as seen from the record, the evidence of plaintiff’s is completed. The suit promissory note was marked as Ex.A.1. At that stage, the defendants filed I.A.No.961 of 2009 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, praying the trial Court to send Ex.A.1 to the Government handwriting expert of the State Forensic Laboratory, Hyderabad, for detection, comparison and opinion of the signatures of the deceased Ranganayakulu in Ex.A.1 and also the erasing of letter ‘3’ in the first line of Ex.A.1 and inserting ‘4’ in its place in the column of the year 2004 in the place of 2003. The plaintiff opposed the application. He contended that the application is not bona fide and that even without the assistance of handwriting expert, the Court would be in a position to come to just conclusion. On considering rival contentions, the Court below rejected the application by order dated 08.12.2009. The trial Court recorded a finding that in the amended written statement, the defendants admitted the execution of promissory note, and a new plea was raised that the promissory note is materially altered. It was also observed that when the defendants admitted execution of promissory note, the allegation that suit promissory note was forged no more subsists. The counsel for petitioners/defendants submits that in the amended written statement, the defendants did not admit about the execution of promissory note by late Ranganayakulu, that the allegation made in the written statement does not amount to admission, and that in law the defendants are entitled to take alternative pleas. There is no dispute that during the pendency of the suit, the petitioners filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking amendment of the written statement by inserting paragtraph 10(a). The same was allowed. The inserted paragraph 10(a) is to the following effect: “this defendant further submits that the suit promissory note was originally executed in the year 2003, but the plaintiff with a view to sake of limitation, he erased the year ‘3’ and inserted ‘4’ on the first line of the suit pronote in the year portion and the above suit is barred by limitation”.[1] Prima facie this is an admission. Though the defendants took a plea in paragraph 9 of the written statement that late Ranganayakulu never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and that said promissory note is forged and fabricated one, defendant took a new plea that the suit promissory note is vitiated by material alteration. In that view of the matter, the Court below was justified in rejecting the application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. The order of the Court below does not suffer from any error much less a grave error apparent on the face of record. The civil revision petition is therefore dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 25.03.2011 pln [1] The phrase ‘… plaintiff with a view to sake of limitation is obviously an inadvertent typing mistake and it ought to read as ‘ … plaintiff with a view to save limitation … ’