IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.Nos.2857 & 2860 OF 2008 Between: C.Mohan Murali …Petitioner A n d Bojja Anjaneyulu ..Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.Nos.2857 & 2860 OF 2008 COMMON ORDER: C.R.P.No.2857 of 2008 is directed against the order dated 27-06-2008 in I.A.No.509 of 2007 in O.S.No.1345 of 2002, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupathi, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein, the defendant, under Section 151 CPC to reopen the evidence for the purpose of sending the suit document to the handwriting expert, was dismissed. 2. C.R.P.No.2860 of 2008 arises out of the order dated 27-06-2008 in I.A.No.510 of 2007 in O.S.No.1345 of 2002, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupathi, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner- defendant under Section 45 of the Evidence Act for the purpose of sending the suit document to the handwriting expert, was dismissed. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner- defendant. None appeared for the respondent-plaintiff, though served with notice. Perused the records. 3. The respondent herein filed the suit for recovery of certain amount alleged to be due under the suit pronote from the petitioner-defendant. The petitioner herein filed written statement inter alia contending that the suit pronote is forged and fabricated. According to him, he borrowed Rs.35,000/- and executed a pronote in favour of the plaintiff and also discharged the said debt with interest under receipts and that the plaintiff has suppressed the original promissory note and filed the suit based on a fabricated promissory note. Earlier, the defendant filed I.A.No.2802 of 2005 under Section 45 of the Evidence Act for sending the suit promissory note to handwriting expert and the said application was allowed by order dated 19-06-2006 and the suit pronote-Ex.A-1 was sent to the handwriting expert to the effect that the admitted signatures and disputed signatures were similar. Thereafter, the trial went on and the matter reached the stage of arguments. At that stage, the petitioner- defendant filed the present applications I.A.Nos.509 & 510 of 2007 for reopening the evidence and to send the disputed suit pronote Ex.A-1 once again to the handwriting expert. The petitioner-defendant has now contended that there is a material alteration in the suit pronote and the same has not been adverted to by the handwriting expert in his report, though the earlier order passed in I.A.No.2802 of 2005 refers to the same. 4. A perusal of the written statement would show that except making a bald allegation in para 8 that the suit pronote is hit by material alteration, the defendant has not specified as to the nature of the alleged material alteration nor the aspect to which it pertains. The plea in the written statement on the said aspect is rather vague and uncertain. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that in the cross-examination of P.W.1 he was questioned about the same and P.W.1 admitted that there is overwriting in the date column wherein the second figure ‘9’ in the year 1999 is overwritten. P.W.1 has further stated that the defendant has written the same. 5. Be that as it may, even assuming that there is overwriting in the figure ‘9’ in the year 1999 and when according to the petitioner-defendant the same is apparent from the document itself even to a naked eye and that P.W.1 has also admitted about the same in the cross-examination, there is absolutely no need to send the document to handwriting expert for the purpose of ascertaining whether there is overwriting or not. Whether or not the alleged overwriting pertains to material factor and, therefore, amounts to material alteration vitiating the document itself, is a matter to be considered by the trial Court based on the evidence available on record. The handwriting expert cannot be expected to state as to who has made the correction and when according to the petitioner-defendant the overwriting is very much apparent on the document, the question of seeking expert’s opinion about the existence of the overwriting, does not simply arise. It is also to be noted that after receipt of the expert’s opinion on the earlier occasion, the petitioner-defendant has not taken any steps immediately and the present application is filed when the matter reached the fag end of the trial and at the stage of arguments, obviously with a view to protract the litigation. There are absolutely no merits in the revision petitions. The impugned orders do not call or any interference. 6. In the result, both the civil revision petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 08th March, 2011 Lrkm.