HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.R.P. No. 1965 of 2010 Order: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 9.3.2010 of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam in I.A. No. 138 of 2009 in O.S. No. 2847 of 2006. The petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff. The respondent-plaintiff filed the suit in O.S. No. 2847 of 2006 for recovery of a sum of Rs.60,000/- based on the promissory note dated 23.10.2004. In that suit, the petitioner herein filed I.A. No. 138 of 2009 under Section 45 of the Evidence Act seeking permission for sending the suit promissory note to the expert for opinion. According to the petitioner, though the revenue stamps available in the suit promissory note contained his signature, but the respondent removed the revenue stamps from another promissory note and affixed them on the suit promissory note. Therefore, he wanted the same to be sent to an expert for opinion to find out as to whether the present stamps were removed from another promissory note before they were affixed on the suit promissory note or not. While opposing the I.A., the respondent filed counter before the trial Court stating that even though in the written statement filed by him in the suit, the petitioner admitted about his signature on the promissory note, but, very peculiarly and conveniently, he took a plea that the respondent removed the signed revenue stamps from the earlier promissory note and affixed the same on the printed promissory note by filling the blanks and filed the suit. She, therefore, denied the allegation of the petitioner that she removed the revenue stamps from the earlier promissory note and affixed it on another promissory note. She further pleaded that the petitioner has been filing petitions after petitions so as to protract the litigation and the present petition being one such petition, the same is also liable to be dismissed. The trial Court, having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the written statement of the respondent, dismissed the said application by the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner had not furnished any details of the other promissory note. Hence, the present revision. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. Admittedly, the petitioner did not furnish the details of the other promissory note, much less, the date of the said pro note, on the basis of which, he was seeking to send the suit promissory note to the expert for opinion, in the absence of which, the trial Court had rightly dismissed the present I.A. In the circumstances, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order under revision warranting interference. The revision petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. However, this order does not preclude the petitioner from raising all the contentions that were urged in this C.R.P. before the trial Court. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J Date: 25th June, 2010 pnb