HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2360 of 2011 Date: September 20, 2011 Between: Majji Vijaya Kumar … Petitioner/Petitioner/Defendant And Jeeru Rama Rao … Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2360 of 2011 O R D E R: This revision is filed challenging order dated 20.4.2011 passed in I.A. No.204 of 2011 in O.S. No.232 of 2009 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam. 2. The petitioner herein, who is the defendant in the main suit O.S. No.232 of 2009, filed I.A. No.204 of 2011 requesting the Court to send Ex.A-1 promissory note to the Government handwriting expert for verification of the age of ink of digit ‘9’ in the year ‘2009’ after the printed digits ‘200’ in the first line describing the date of Ex.A-1 and also with respect to the date 03.03.2009 underneath the signature of the scribe Majji Satyanarayana for verifying the age of the ink of the said date 03.03.2009 and to compare the same with that of the digit ‘9’ in the year ‘2009’ at the top of Ex.A-1 promissory note. The Court below, having considered that the petitioner had not taken any specific plea in the written statement, dismissed the said application. 3. Heard both the counsel. 4. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the signature of the petitioner on Ex.A-1 promissory note was obtained under coercion and threat and that subsequently the date was altered and that the Court below ought to have allowed the application and send the document to the handwriting expert to ascertain the age of the ink at the place of date. 5. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order is sustainable? 6. The facts are not in dispute. It is not in dispute that Ex.A-1 promissory note bears the signature of the petitioner/defendant. Once a party admits the signature in a document and takes a plea that he was threatened or forced to sign on such document, the burden shifts on him to prove under what circumstances he was forced to sign in such a document. 7. As far as the interpolation at the place of date is concerned, admittedly, the petitioner had not taken any such plea in his written statement or in his reply legal notice. It is submitted that the petitioner had no occasion to see the promissory note before filing the written statement before the Court. This plea also cannot be accepted since soon after receiving the summons, he could have filed an application before the Court below seeking permission to peruse the records and nothing prevented him to verify the records before filing his written statement. Therefore, I do not see any reason to interfere with the well- reasoned order impugned in this revision. 8,. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date: September 20, 2011. BSB