THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3716 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner herein is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff, who filed the suit O.S.No.184 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti, for recovery of money basing on the suit pro- note. It is the case of the petitioner that he filed written statement in the said suit and while denying all the allegations made in the plaint, he has taken a specific plea stating that the first line of the suit pro-note was materially altered as 2004 instead of 2003. The number ‘3’ was altered as ‘4’ to save the limitation and to file the said suit. Therefore, to prove the said plea, which was taken in the written statement, it is for the plaintiff to take steps for sending the suit pro-note to the handwriting expert, but the plaintiff has not taken any such steps. Therefore, he filed I.A.No.388 of 2009 seeking to send the suit pro-note to the handwriting expert to know as to whether the year 2003 mentioned in the suit pro-note is altered as 2004 or not. A counter has been filed by the respondent denying the said allegations and stated that the said petition was filed only to protract the proceedings and to cause delay in adjudication of the issue. A perusal of the affidavit filed by the petitioner goes to show that in view of the defence taken in the written statement, it is for the plaintiff to take steps for sending the suit pro-note to the handwriting expert to decide as to whether the year 2003 mentioned in the suit pro-note is altered as 2004 or not. No other specific particulars have been narrated in the application for sending the pro-note. If 2003 is altered as 2004, as rightly observed by the trial Judge, it can be easily seen by a naked eye and the scientific assistance is not necessary. However, it is rightly observed by the trial court that the petitioner has cross-examined the witness keeping in view the defence taken in the written statement and the said dispute can easily be resolved. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I do not see any infirmity legal or otherwise in rejecting the said application. However, I am of the opinion that after completing the evidence, if the court below comes to a conclusion that the expert’s opinion is necessary with regard to the material alteration of the number ‘3’ as ‘4’, it is open to the petitioner to revive his request for sending the pro-note to the expert’s opinion. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with the above observation. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 05-03-2010 Prv