HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRP No.4610/2007 DT.12-11-2009 Tunuguntla Jyothi …Petitioner/Plaintiff Atmuri Lava Sekhara Rao ..Respondent/defendant The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRP No.4610/2007 ORAL ORDER: The plaintiff is in revision under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India filed to revise the orders of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada dt. 12-9-2007 passed in IA No.562/2007 in OS No.682/2006, whereunder petition filed to send the suit promissory note covered under Ex.A-1 and letter covered under Ex.A-4 and two promissory notes dt. 2-10-2002 executed by the wife of the defendant and scribed by the defendant and two promissory notes d. 24-5-2002 executed by the defendant to the Handwriting Expert has been dismissed. The petitioner-plaintiff filed the present suit based on promissory note. She filed IA No.561/2007 to re-open the case and IA No.562/2007 to send the promissory notes etc., to the Handwriting Expert stating that the defendant filed his written statement contending that he paid the amount due by way of DDs; that the plaintiff herself was examined as P.W.1 and the attestor was examined as P.W.2 and the defendant himself was examined as D.W.1; that the defendant previously borrowed the amount from the plaintiff and her husband and paid the amount due under two promissory notes dt. 24-5-2002 for Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/- executed in favour of her husband and another one in her favour; that during the course of cross- examination, said two discharged promissory notes and other promissory notes executed by his wife were shown to D.W.1 but D.W.1 denied the execution, but admitted that the suit promissory note is executed by him and he himself is the scribe of the suit promissory note. Hence, it is just and necessary to send the said promissory notes to the Handwriting Expert to prove her case. It is not in dispute, the plaintiff filed the suit based on the promissory note dt. 29-7-2003 executed by the defendant for Rs.1,00,000/-. Whereas the defendant pleaded that he borrowed Rs.2 lakhs from the husband of the plaintiff and the husband of the plaintiff obtained two promissory notes each for Rs.1,00,000/- from him; one in the name of himself ie., husband of the plaintiff and another in the name of his wife ie., plaintiff and he paid the amount by way of demand drafts drawn on Andhra Bank in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff as well as defendant let in their evidence and when the suit is coming up for arguments, the above IA is filed, along with IA to reopen the case of the plaintiff. In the cross-examination of P.W.1, she stated that except the suit debt, there were no other money dealings between her and the defendant. According to her, the defendant borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- from her on 29-7-2003 under Ex.A-1. The defendant has taken a plea that he discharged the said debt by way of demand drafts. During the course of cross-examination, D.W.1, who is the defendant, denied the two discharged promissory notes executed by him and two other discharged promissory notes executed by his wife. Therefore, burden always lies upon the defendant to prove the discharge of the debt covered under the present promissory note - Ex.A-1. The admission made by P.W.1 that except the suit debt, there is no amount due to her by the defendant cannot be wiped out, by pleading now that the suit promissory note and earlier promissory notes be sent to the Handwriting Expert for his opinion. The trial court rightly dismissed the petition filed to send the promissory notes etc., to the Handwriting Expert, which does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this court. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J Date:12-11-2010 kmr