2THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5173 OF 2010 DATED:03.08.2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 19.10.2010, in I.A.No.169 of 2010 in O.S.No.7 of 2010 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Repalle, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein-defendant under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, requesting the Court to send the suit promissory note-Ex.A1 together with the part-payment endorsement thereon-Exs.A1 and A2 to the expert for the purpose of examination and comparison of the signatures, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the records. 3. Respondent herein filed the suit against the petitioner for the amount alleged to be due under the suit promissory note-Ex.A1, dated 02.09.1999. According to the plaintiff, defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.2,80,000/- from the plaintiff on 02.09.1999 and executed the suit promissory note-Ex.A1 and that subsequently he made an endorsement after obtaining the sum of Rs.1000/- on 08.09.2002 under Ex.A2 and the balance amount remained unpaid in spite of demands. Defendant filed written statement contending that the plaintiff, being a teacher, was doing money lending business in the name of the defendant by obtaining promissory notes in the name of the defendant and in connection with that business, he obtained promissory notes from the defendant by way of security on 02.09.1999 as if the defendant borrowed Rs.2,80,000/- but in fact, the defendant did not borrow any amount. He also pleaded that he does not admit the said promissory note to be the suit promissory note. The trial of the suit is in progress. P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the plaintiff and when the matter was coming up for defendant’s evidence the present application is filed. 4. As seen from the impugned order, P.Ws.1 and 2 have stated that the suit promissory note-Ex.A1 and part-payment endorsement-Ex.A2 were also scribed by the defendant himself. Though the defendant disputes the signatures on Exs.A1 and A2, he does not dispute the handwriting on those documents. Further, the defendant having admitted that the plaintiff obtained promissory note from him on 02.09.1999 as if he borrowed Rs.2,80,000/-, the burden lies on him to establish that the suit promissory note was not the one which was obtained from him. In view of the pleadings and also the evidence available on record, there are absolutely no valid or sufficient grounds for sending Exs.A1 and A2 to the handwriting expert for the purpose of comparison and opinion. The trial Court shall dispose of the matter, based on the evidence available on record, without in any way being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove. The impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court. 4. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 02nd August, 2011. Tsy