IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICIATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH, AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.4965 OF 2006 Between:- Vallabhaneni Venkatram …Petitioner A n d Challagolla Venkata Naga Kishore …Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.4965 OF 2006 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 12-09-2006 in I.A.No.4316 of 2005 in O.S.No.194 of 2002, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein, the defendant, under Section 45 of the Evidence Act to send the suit promissory note dated 12-10-1999 to handwriting expert, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondent. Perused the record. 3. The respondent herein filed the suit against the petitioner for recovery of certain amount alleged to be due under the suit pronote. The petitioner-defendant filed written statement denying his liability and also contending that the suit pronote is materially altered by changing the figure from ‘1’ to ‘4’ in the amount column on the top of the pronote. The trial of the suit was in progress. At that stage, after two witnesses were examined on behalf of the plaintiff and two witnesses on behalf of the defendant, the defendant came forward with an application in I.A.No.4316 of 2005 requesting the Court to send the suit pronote to the handwriting expert for the purpose of finding out whether there is any material alternation in the amount column on the top of the pronot or not. The trial Court, by the impugned order, dismissed the said application, observing that the signature on the pronote is not disputed by the defendant and the question of material alteration can be decided by appreciating the other evidence available on record and there is no need to send the document to the handwriting expert. 4. It is to be noted that as seen from the impugned order the petitioner-defendant has not disputed his signature on the suit promissory note. The only contention that remained was whether the suit pronote was materially altered by changing the figure from 1’ to ‘4’ in the amount column on the top of the promissory note. As rightly observed by the trial Court, the question as to whether or not the said alteration was done at the time of execution of the pronote itself to the knowledge and with the consent of the defendant or whether it was done subsequently and whether the subsequent alteration amounts to material alteration so as to vitiate the pronote itself, are all matters to be considered on evidence that may be adduced at the time of trial. When the alteration of the figure from ‘1’ to ‘4’is said to be apparent and the question to be considered is whether it amounts to material alteration vitiating the suit pronote, sending of document to the handwriting expert is not required. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 5 . In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. Interim stay granted earlier stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 07th February, 2011 Lrkm.