THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.708 AND 709 OF 2009 COMMON ORDER: Since common question arises in these two revisions, they are taken up together for disposal. The petitioner filed these revisions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking to assail the orders dated 16.12.2008 in I.A.Nos.98 and 99 of 2005 in O.S.Nos.259 and 11 of 2003 respectively on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, Guntur District, in rejecting the applications filed under Section 45 of the Evidence Act {“the Act” for brevity} and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to send the suit pro-note dated 27.12.1999 to Government Handwriting Expert for the purpose of comparison and opinion. The facts of the case, in brief, are that in the suits filed for recovery of money under pro-note, the defendant-petitioner herein contested the same by taking a specific plea that the suit pro-note is a forged document and therefore, he is entitled to send the said pro-note to the Government Handwriting Expert for comparison and opinion. The Court below dismissed the applications on the ground of latches. Hence, the revisions. Having considered the submissions made and on perusal of the material available on record, it is seen that in cases of this nature, where a specific plea is taken by the defendant, necessarily the burden lies on the plaintiff but not on the defendant. It is for the plaintiff to undertake an exercise under Section 45 of the Act, but not for the defendant. If the plaintiff takes no such step, it is always open for the defendant to take advantage of the same. In the said circumstances, I do not find any merits in both the revisions. Both the Civil Revision Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) 16th July 2010 RRB