IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4515 of 2009 Between: R.Giridhar Naidu ..... PETITIONER AND D.Nagesh Naidu .....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4515 of 2009 ORDER: Petitioner is the defendant. Respondent is the plaintiff and he filed the suit in O.S.71/2008 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Pakala, Chittoor District for recovery of money based on a promissory note dated 06.05.2005. The defendant filed written statement in the said suit stating that the plaintiff and defendant are living by milk business and developed friendship. The plaintiff is running chits and the defendant joined in the said chits as one of the subscribers along with adjacent villagers and plaintiff’s friends. The chit value is Rs.10,000/- and every subscriber has to pay Rs.500/- per month. The defendant has successfully got 4th chit and received a sum of Rs.6,000/- and at that time the plaintiff insisted for blank promissory note and the defendant gave a blank promissory note in the year 1999 and later the defendant paid regularly the chit amounts upto last installment. Having the belief on the plaintiff, the defendant did not insist the plaintiff to return the said blank promissory note pertaining to 1999 year, but the plaintiff filed the said suit based on the alleged promissory note, correcting the year. It is the case of the defendant that he has not executed the said promissory note on 06.05.2005 but he has signed the promissory note in 1999. It is further stated that the defendant signed the promissory note with a blue refill pen but whereas the promissory note was filled with black refill pen and there are over writings and hence the defendant filed I.A.251/2009 for sending the said promissory note to a hand writing expert for his opinion and to find out the difference of ink, time and year, overwriting corrections etc. The Court below dismissed the said application observing that the signatures signed with blue refill pen and the body of the promissory note filled with black refill pen is visible to the naked eye and therefore, expert opinion is not required. If that be so, I am of the opinion that it is always open to the defendant to put forth his defence by adducing cogent evidence or by cross examining the witnesses of the plaintiff. In that view of the matter, I do not see any illegality or infirmity warranting interference with the impugned order. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 06.11.2009 Dsr