THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1011 of 2011 25.03.2011 Between: Y.Lakshmi and another ...Petitioners And Y.Ramanaiah ...Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1011 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioners are defendants. They are legal heirs of late Munirathnam Naidu. The sole respondent instituted the suit being O.S.No.25 of 2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Puttur for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,10,000/- based on a promissory note, dated 08.12.2003, allegedly executed by the predecessor of the petitioners. The petitioners are contesting the suit on the ground that the suit promissory note is forged and fabricated and late Munirathnam Naidu never borrowed the amount. At the stage of trial, the defendants filed I.A.No.243 of 2010 purportedly under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. They prayed the Court below to send the suit promissory note to handwriting expert. The Court below dismissed the application on 07.02.2011. Aggrieved by which, the petitioners filed instant petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India. Counsel for petitioners submits that as per the statement of Tahsildar in his cross-examination as D.W.2, the plaintiff gave a statement to the effect that money was advanced to the promissor as hand loan without any document. According to her, this would belie plaintiff’s allegation that late Munirathnam Naidu executed a promissory note and if the document is not sent to handwriting expert, the defendents/petitioners would suffer injustice. The application to send the document to handwriting expert was sought to be sustained on the strength of a statement allegedly made by the plaintiff before D.W.2 that there was no promissory note executed by the predecessor of the defendants. The Court below dismissed the application observing that if the statement of the D.W.1., is correct with regard to the quantum of plaintiff advancing money without any document, nothing prevented the defendants to mark the statement/deposition made by the plaintiff before D.W.2. It would have more probate value than the opinion of the expert who is not binding on the Court although it is of some significance in the matter of disputed signatures and handwriting. The Court below has correctly appreciated the factual background and exercised jurisdiction properly. The civil revision petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 25.03.2011 pln