THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2453 of 2011 ORDER: The respondent filed O.S.No.350 of 2010 in the Court of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupathi against the petitioner for recovery of a sum of Rs.89,600/- on the basis of a promissory note, dated 28.03.2009. It was alleged that the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.70,000/-, executed a promissory note, but did not repay the amount in spite of repeated demands. The petitioner filed a written statement stating that he borrowed only a sum of Rs.10,000/- and executed a promissory note, but the figure was altered in the promissory note. He further stated that he signed almost a blank promissory note, wherein the figure Rs.10,000/- was mentioned in the top and the rest of the blanks were filled after he signed it. The trial of the suit commenced and the evidence on behalf of the respondent was concluded. At that stage, the petitioner filed I.A.No.350 of 2011 under Section 45 of the Evidence Act with a prayer to send the promissory note for examination by a Government Handwriting Expert with reference to the alteration of the figure Rs.10,000/-. The application was opposed by the respondent. The trial Court dismissed the I.A. through its order, dated 03.05.2011. Sri V.Eswaraiah Chowdary, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that even to a naked eye, it is evident that there is alteration in the amount mentioned in the top of the promissory note and the opinion of an expert would be of much help for the trial Court to arrive at a just and proper conclusion. The evidence on behalf of the respondent has been concluded. The promissory note is signed by the petitioner, two witnesses and a scribe. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the scribe of the promissory note was not examined. He would be the best person to state as to whether the particulars were written by him in the presence of the petitioner and if so, whether they reflected the actual instructions issued by the parties concerned. When the dispute is only about the alleged correction of one of the figures, necessary information can be elicited through oral and documentary evidence that may be adduced by the petitioner. The trial Court did not feel the necessity of sending the document for examination by an expert and this Court is not inclined to take a different view. Hence, the civil revision petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to place such material before the trial Court as he intends to, to establish his plea that there is alteration in the promissory note. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:08.07.2011 Note: The trial Court issued certified copy of order and decree in I.A.No.350 of 2011. In the order, the petitioner herein is shown as petitioner/defendant, whereas in the decree, he is shown as petitioner/plaintiff. Such a serious mistake ought not to have occurred and the learned Presiding Officer shall ensure that the mistakes of that nature do not occur in future. (B/o) kdl