HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:2747 OF 2011 ORDER: Aggrieved by the order dated 30.5.2011 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid, Krishna District dismissing the I.A.No.318 of 2011 in O.S.No.173 of 2004 filed by the petitioner-defendant under Section 45 of the Evidence Act to send Ex.A1 promissory note to the Government expert to compare the age of writing used in signature and the age of other writing thereon, the present revision petition is filed. It is the case of the petitioner-defendant that he borrowed an amount of Rs.40,000/- from the finance company belonging to the respondent-plaintiff in the year 1991 for purchase of a tractor and at that time, the husband of the plaintiff obtained his signature on some empty stamped pronotes but the same were not returned while issuing no due certificate and one of those documents is brought into existence for the purpose of filing the present suit and the suit pronote is not at all supported by any consideration and he has not borrowed any amount on 22.12.2001 as alleged by the plaintiff and therefore, the suit promissory note may be sent for expert’s opinion. From the material on record, it is obvious that the plaintiff’s side evidence was closed and the suit has been coming up for further evidence on defendant’s side. At that stage, the petitioner-defendant filed the present petition. The petitioner-defendant is not denying his signature on the promissory note. But he has taken a defence that the husband of the plaintiff obtained the signature on empty promissory notes. It is pertinent to note that expert evidence is opinion evidence and whenever an application is filed for sending a particular document to an expert, that does not mean that necessarily and automatically the said application must be allowed. It would depend upon over all facts and circumstances. In the instant case, the petitioner-defendant did not state anything in his written statement that the writings in the suit promissory note were subsequent to the original transaction. But he filed the present application on that ground. It is well settled that the burden lies upon the plaintiff to establish the execution of the promissory note and passing of consideration under the pronote in question. When the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the execution of the suit pronote and passing of consideration, on his failure to discharge the burden, the plaintiff may not succeed in the suit. In the light of the said position and taking into consideration the fact that the present application has been filed at the stage of evidence on defendant’s side, the learned Senior Civil Judge declined to send the suit promissory note to the expert. In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Court below and hence, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ Justice A. Gopal Reddy Date:29th July, 2011 Nn. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:2747 OF 2011 29.7.2011 Nn