THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3702 of 2011 Date: 23.09.2011 Between: Kolli Venkateswara Rao S/o.Nageswara Rao, Vijayawada …. Petitioner And Kosaraju Venkata Hari Satya Rama Prasad, S/o.Sri Rama Murthy, Mudinepalli, Krishna District …. Respondent The Court made the following ORDER: COMMON ORDER: The petitioner/defendant filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 27.07.2011 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada in dismissing I.A.No.654 of 2011 in O.S.No.130 of 2008 filed by him for sending the suit promissory note – Ex.A.1 to the Handwriting or Finger Print Expert for giving opinion in respect of the age of signatures on it as to whether those signatures were subscribed in 1998 or 2007. The respondent/plaintiff filed the above suit for recovery of the amount based on the promissory note. The petitioner-defendant filed a written statement in the said suit stating that himself and his two brothers borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 24.12.1998 from the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest @36% per annum; that at the time of borrowing the loan, they have executed blank promissory note; that on 24.08.2000, himself and his brothers went to the house of the plaintiff to discharge the said debt, and as the plaintiff was not in the house, they gave an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the wife of the plaintiff and that when they demanded her to return the blank promissory note executed by them, she told that it was in the iron safe of her husband, and therefore, they obtained an endorsement for the said denomination in her own handwriting. But, the said promissory note was not returned and it was pressed into service by filing the above suit. The learned trial Judge, after considering the entire material available on record, by the impugned order observed that there is no technology that the age of the signatures on the document can be determined by the Handwriting Expert; that the plaintiff’s side evidence was closed on 15.02.2011 and the defendant’s side evidence was recorded on 01.07.2011 and that at that stage the above Interlocutory Application came to be filed and accordingly dismissed the Interlocutory Application. Hence, this revision petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the entire material available on record. Admittedly, the suit has been coming up for the evidence on behalf of the defendant. At that stage, present application has been filed. The petitioner-defendant has not taken any steps for sending the suit document to the Handwriting Expert or Finger Print Expert for the opinion in respect of the age of the signatures, at the earliest point of time and filing of the present application is only an afterthought. Further, the evidence of Handwriting Expert is a very weak piece of evidence and it does not outweigh the direct evidence adduced by the parties. In view of the same, the discretion exercised by the lower Court in dismissing the Interlocutory Application does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, it is always open for the petitioner to lead the evidence of his brothers to show that the blank promissory note, which was given to the plaintiff in December, 1998, was pressed into service by the plaintiff, or can lead evidence of the other persons, who have knowledge that the revenue stamps on the promissory note in question were issued in the year 1998 or 2007. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J Date: 23.09.2011 va