THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2953 of 2010 Dated:06.08.2010 Between: Penumasta Suryanarayana Raju. ….Petitioner And Bellamkonda Buchi Babu. …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2953 of 2010 ORDER: In the suit, being O.S.No.119 of 2004, on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Tanuku, filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- based on a promissory note, the plea of the petitioner/defendant is that the suit promissory note is not legal and valid. It is also his plea that he borrowed the amount from a financier, Sri N.Sudhakar, and gave a blank promissory note and that even after discharge of the debt, the blank promissory note was not returned. It is also his allegation that based on such blank promissory note, the suit was filed. Be that as it is, during the trial, the petitioner filed I.A.No.241 of 2007 to send the document to expert opinion in respect of “ink proof time gap”. It was allowed. The expert gave opinion to the effect that “nothing is known”. Therefore, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1330 of 2009 to summon the expert for cross examination. By impugned order, dated 25.02.2010, the same has been dismissed, aggrieved by which, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. After hearing the Counsel for the petitioner, this Court does not find any grave error apparent on the face of the record. When the expert gave opinion that nothing is known about the terms of reference, it would be futile to subject the expert to cross examination. The Civil Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 06.08.2010 vs