THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA C.R.P. No. 3105 of 2011 O r d e r: This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 15.07.2011 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor, dismissing the application in I.A. No. 341 of 2001 in O.S. No. 188 of 2007 filed by the petitioner-defendant under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, praying to send Ex. A1-promissory note to Central Government Press, Nasik, to determine the date of printing of revenue stamps, affixed on the suit promissory note and its release for public. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order under revision. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner did not execute the suit promissory note and the promissory note is ante-dated. In order to establish that the promissory note is ante-dated, it is necessary that Ex. A1-promissory note should be sent to Central Government Press, Nasik, to ascertain when the revenue stamps affixed on Ex.A1-promissory note were printed and released for public use. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present application, but the Court below committed an error in dismissing the same by reason of the order under revision. This contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. The evidence of the respondent-plaintiff as well as the petitioner-defendant is over. At that point, the petitioner-defendant filed the present application. Though the Court, on its own cannot ascertain when the revenue stamp was printed released for public use, the fact remains, the parties have adduced evidence as regards the genuineness or otherwise of Ex. A1-promissory note. Though the petitioner contends that he has not executed Ex. A1-promissory note, there is ample evidence available on record, including that of one of the attestors- cum-scribe, through which the genuineness or otherwise of Ex. A1- promissory can be ascertained by the Court. Since the genuineness or otherwise of the execution of Ex. A1-promissory note can be ascertained by appreciating the evidence led by the parties, the Court below felt that there is no necessity to send Ex. A1-promissory note to the Central Government Press, Nasik, to ascertain when the revenue stamps affixed on Ex. A1-promissory note were printed and released for public use, and no exception can be taken thereto, and more so when it is not the case of the petitioner-defendant that the revenue stamps affixed on the promissory note are post-dated. For the foregoing reasons, I find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the order under revision in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There is no merit in the C.R.P. and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 12th August, 2011. KSR