IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICIATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH, AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.1076 OF 2009 Between:- Ambati Siva Swarup …Petitioner A n d Majeti Krishna Sindhuja …Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.1076 OF 2009 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 11-02-2009 in I.A.No.458 of 2007 in O.S.No.826 of 2004, on the file of the IV-Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Vijayawada, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner under Section 45 of the Evidence Act to send the suit pronote to handwriting expert for comparison, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record. 3. The respondent herein filed the suit against the petitioner/ defendant for recovery of certain amount due under the suit pronote. The petitioner/defendant filed a written statement opposing the suit claim and denying his liability. He further contends that the suit pronote is fabricated and it is also materially altered. The trial of the suit commenced and plaintiff’s side evidence was completed. At that stage, the petitioner/defendant filed the present application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act seeking to send Ex.A-1 suit pronote for handwriting expert to ascertain and compare the age of the ink of payee’s column and other columns and also to examine the handwriting of P.W.1 with the admitted writings in Ex.A-1 in the payee’s column. According to the petitioner/defendant, the names of the payees were left blank in the suit pronote and they were subsequently filled up and the same amounts to material alteration. 4. The respondent/plaintiff, on the other hand, would contend that the name of the payee is noted in the suit pronote at the time of execution of the pronote itself and there was no subsequent alteration, much less a material alteration in the suit pronote. 5. The question as to whether or not the names of the payees are mentioned on the pronotes at the time of execution itself and whether or not the pronotes are not vitiated by any material alterations, are all matters to be considered on evidence that may be adduced by both sides at the time of trial. However, inasmuch as the defendant is not seeking expert opinion pertaining to his signatures on the suit pronotes, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application observing that the suit document is not required to be sent to expert for the purpose of valuating the age of the ink with which the name of the payee is written vis-à-vis the rest of the document. 6. In the circumstances, it is considered that the impugned order, refusing to send the suit document to the handwriting expert for the purpose prayed for, does not call for any interference, as the same does not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity. 7. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 09th February, 2011 Lrkm.