THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY C.R.P No.6082 of 2009 Date:10.06.2010 Between: V.Sudhakar Rao, Advocate, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District. ………Petitioner And Rangoju Sheshadri, Miryalaguda Town and Mandal, Nalgonda District. ……….Respondent THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY C.R.P No.6082 of 2009 ORDER: 1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 27.11.2009 passed in I.A.No.192 of 2007 in O.S.No.345 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda, whereby and whereunder the learned Junior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the defendant under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. 2. The petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.345 of 2007. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of the money on the basis of a pro-note, which has been exhibited as Ex.A-1. The defendant resisted the claim of the plaintiff by filing written statement. He pleaded in the written statement that the suit pro-note is renewal of earlier pro-note. He also took the plea that the plaintiff himself filled up the interest column, and, therefore, the suit pro-note is a materially altered one. The plaintiff adduced evidence to prove Ex.A1 suit promissory note. Thereafter, the defendant filed I.A.No.192 of 2007 under Section 45 of the Evidence Act to send Ex.A1 promissory note to the Forensic Science Laboratory to compare the handwritings in the interest column with his admitted handwritings. The plaintiff resisted the application by filing counter. 3. The learned Junior Civil Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, proceeded to dismiss the application on the ground that the defendant has not raised any objection with regard to the letters “2” written in words in Telugu. The dismissal of the application is assailed in this revision. 4. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 31.12.2009. Respondent entered appearance though a counsel. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant submits that the trial Court has committed a serious error in observing that the defendant has not raised any objection with regard to the letters “2” written in words in Telugu and thereby erred in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/defendant to send Ex.A1-promissory note to Forensic Science Laboratory. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioner/defendant moved the application before the trial Court to drag on the proceedings. 8. I have gone through the order impugned in the revision. The trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/defendant on the ground that the petitioner has not raised any objection with regard to the letters “2” written in words in Telugu. The reason given by the trial Court appears to be contrary to the material brought on record. The petitioner/defendant in the written statement specifically pleaded that it is the plaintiff who filled up the interest column both in words and figures, and, therefore, the suit pro-note is a materially altered one. For better appreciation, I may refer the relevant portion of the written statement, which reads as hereunder: “For the said amount of Rs.33,000/- (Rupees Thirty Three thousand only) the plaintiff has got executed a fresh promissory note on 3-9-2004 without mentioning interest. At the time of executing promissory note the interest column was kept blank. So, the alleged suit pronote is materially altered by adding words “RENDU” and number “2-00”. It is glaringly appears that the ink used for “2-00” and “RENDU” are different from ink used for other remaining words of pronote. Therefore, the defendant is reserving his right to send the suit pronote to expert for seeking opinion on alteration of pronote of “RENDU” and number “2-00”.” 9. It is evident from the written statement that the petitioner/defendant specifically pleaded that the plaintiff is a person who got filled up the interest column both in words and also in figures. The observation of the trial Court that the petitioner has not raised any objection with regard to the letters “2”, written in words in Telugu cannot be sustained. However, I make it clear that the technology has not been developed so far with regard to deciding the age of the ink. Therefore, document need not be send for ascertaining the age of ink used in filling up the interest portion in Ex.A1 suit pronote. 10. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 27.11.2009 and consequently I.A.No.192 of 2007 stands allowed to the extent of sending Ex.A1-promissory note to the Forensic Science Laboratory with regard to the handwritings in the interest column in Ex.A1-promissory note. No costs. ______________________________________ JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Date:10.6.2010 mrb