THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.R.P.No.2613 of 2011 ORDER: 1 This revision is directed against the order dated 18.04.2011 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Adoni, Kurnool District in I.A.No.633 of 2010 in O.S.No.77 of 2009 where under and whereby the petition filed by the revision petitioner-defendant under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and under Order 26 Rule 10 (A) (1) CPC for sending a document to the handwriting expert for comparison and opinion was dismissed. 2 Brief facts are that the respondent herein filed the suit O.S.No.77 of 2009 against the petitioner herein for recovery of money covered under the suit promissory notes. Petitioner is contesting the said suit by way of filing a written statement, contending inter alia that the suit promotes were devoid of consideration and were nominally executed by him keeping the particulars of executant and names of the witnesses blank while he was in cordial terms with the respondent- plaintiff for their business adjustments. But on account of subsequent misunderstandings, the respondent filled up the particulars of the executant and the signatures of the attestors in the promissory notes by effecting material alterations in the promissory notes and filed the above suit. Hence, the petitioner filed the said petition I.A.No.633 of 2010 requesting the court below to send the suit promissory notes along with the admitted signatures of the executant and the witnesses and also material alterations i.e. adding of particulars of executant by some body and age of signatures of the attestors for scientific investigations and report. That petition was dismissed on the ground that adding of attestors subsequently would not amount to material alterations and there is no need to send the documents in question to the expert. Hence, this revision. 3 The plea taken by the petitioner in the written statement is that the plaintiff filed up the names of the payee and the signatures of the attestors subsequently and on the basis of the same, he filed the present suit by playing fraud. The specific plea of the petitioner is that the attestors have subsequently signed on the suit promissory notes. That is a question of fact, which can be ascertained when the attestors are going to be examined on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff. So at this stage, it cannot be said that the suit promissory notes were attested by the attestors subsequent to the date of execution of the suit promissory notes. The question of material alteration at this stage does not arise. Therefore, the trial court has rightly dismissed the said application and the impugned order does not warrant any interference by this court. 4 This Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. -------------------- K.C. BHANU, J 08.08.2011 Kvsn