IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.6123 OF 2006 Between : Sri K.Somasundaram ...PETITIONER A N D Sri Mohd.Afzal …RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.6123 OF 2006 ORDER: This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 07.11.2006 in I.A. No.1160 of 2006 in O.S.No.140 of 2000 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, whereunder and whereby the application filed to send the document for expert opinion, was dismissed. The respondent herein filed O.S.No.140 of 2000, for recovery of money under promissory note (Ex.A5). The petitioner further contended that the suit promissory note was materially altered and that the signatures of the attestors were also obtained subsequent to the execution of the promissory note. Therefore, the petitioner sought to refer the original promissory note and the Xerox copy of promissory note to the handwriting expert for opinion. In the similar circumstances, this Court has already taken a view that the burden of proving the genuineness of a promissory note rests entirely with the plaintiff. Therefore, even the exercise under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act needs to be done only by the plaintiff but not by the defendant. If the plaintiff does not make any such exercise under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is always open to the defendant/petitioner to take advantage thereof and to draw any presumption, which may arise in the circumstances. In view of the same I do not find any merits in the revision. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________________ B.PRAKASH RAO, J JUNE 17, 2010 YVL/RRB