IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3572 OF 2008 Between : V.Kullayappa .... PETITIONER A N D P.Pushpalatha …RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3572 OF 2008 O R D E R: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 04.07.2008, in I.A.No.31 of 2008 in O.S. No.443 of 2006 on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Anantapur, whereunder and whereby, the application, filed under Sections 45 and 46 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, “the Act”) and under Section 151 of the C.P.C., to send the documents to handwriting expert for comparison and opinion with regard to forgery and material alteration in the suit promissory note, dated 15.07.2003, was dismissed on the ground that no specific plea has been taken by the petitioner / defendant herein in the written statement. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondent in spite of service of notice. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that at the time of filing of the application in the trial Court, a specific plea has been taken by the petitioner in the written statement stating that there are some material alterations in the suit promissory note; that he has not borrowed any amount from the respondent/plaintiff on 15.07.2003; that he never executed any promissory note, and hence, and he prays to set aside the impugned order. 4. The plain meaning of Section 45 of the Act, the Court in order to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law, or of Science, or art, or as to identity of handwriting, or finger impressions can treat the opinion upon that point of person specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art or in questions as to identity of hand writing or finger impressions as relevant facts. 5. Evidence of experts is opinion evidence. The opinion is supported by reasons. The Court has to evaluate the same like any other evidence. But denying the right of defendant to send the disputed document to an expert at the threshold is unsustainable especially, when the defendant has taken a specific plea of forgery and material alterations in the suit promissory note. 6. Having taken such pleas by the petitioner/defendant, it is for him to establish the same. Therefore, the trial Court ought to have allowed the petition. Hence, the revision is liable to be allowed. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order, dated 04.07.2008, in I.A.No.31 of 2008 in O.S.No.443 of 2006, on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Anantapur an consequently the application filed by the petitioner/defendant is allowed and the trial Court is directed to send the suit promissory to expert, after obtaining necessary signatures from the petitioner in the trial Court. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J NOVEMBER 29, 2010. YVL