THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5065 OF 2009 DATED: 20-11-2009 Between: Pyna Satyavathi. ..... PETITIONER And Chandaka Ganga Raju & another. .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 14-09-2009, in I.A.No.183 of 2009 in O.S.No.965 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner-defendant under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, seeking to send the suit promissory note to the handwriting expert for comparison and opinion regarding the thumb impression contained therein, was dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner-defendant. None appeared for the respondents-plaintiffs. Perused the record. 3. The respondents-plaintiffs filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.68,746/-, due under the suit promissory note, dated 12- 12-2003. According to the plaintiff, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.40,000/- and executed the suit promissory note. In the written statement, the defendant pleaded that she has no acquaintance with the plaintiff and that she borrowed a sum of Rs.5000/- from one Korada Kanthamma, who is the mother of the 2nd plaintiff, and the said Kanthamma obtained two blank promissory notes from the defendant and also took her title deeds by way of security. She further pleaded that she paid Rs.250/- per month towards interest for one year and later she paid the principal amount of Rs.5000/- also but in spite of requests the said Kanthamma did not return the promissory notes nor the title deeds. The 2nd plaintiff is the daughter and the 1st plaintiff is the son-in-law of the said Kanthamma. After framing necessary issues, the trial of the suit was taken up and now the matter is at the stage of arguments. The defendant at this stage, has come up with the present I.A.No.183 of 2009 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking to send the suit promissory note to the handwriting expert for comparison of the thumb impression. Though the plaintiff has stated ‘no objection’ for sending the document, the trial Court dismissed the said application on the ground that the opinion of the expert is not required in view of the pleadings and the application is filed at a belated stage when the matter is coming up for arguments and therefore it lacks bona fides. 4. As seen from the written statement, the plea of the defendant is that Kanthamma, who is the mother of the 2nd plaintiff, obtained blank promissory note from her and she failed to return the same in spite of the defendant discharging the loan of Rs.5000/- with interest and that subsequently the said Kanthamma got the suit filed through her daughter and son-in-law by taking advantage of the blank promissory note containing the thumb impression of the defendant, being available with her. Thus, there is no specific denial regarding the genuineness of the thumb impression contained in the suit promissory note. If that is so, the opinion of the finger print expert regarding the genuineness or otherwise of the thumb impression obtained on the suit promissory note is not required. The filing of the present application at a highly belated stage, when the matter is coming up for arguments would only result in further protraction of the proceedings. The trial Court has therefore rightly rejected the said petition as the same lacks bona fides. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. 5. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 20th November, 2009 Tsy