HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4201 OF 2010 Between: G.Arjuna Rao … Petitioner And P.Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Raju … Respondent This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4201 OF 2010 ORDER:- Petitioner/defendant filed this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution, to revise the dismissal order of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, dated 19.08.2010 passed in I.A.No.554 of 2010 in O.S.No.770 of 2009. Petitioner/defendant filed the above I.A. under Section 45 of the Evidence Act for sending Ex.A1 promissory note, dated 14.12.2006, to any reputed handwriting expert for his opinion about the genuineness of the figures noted therein. Respondent/plaintiff filed the above suit for recovery of the promissory note amount of Rs.75,000/- with interest, in which the petitioner filed the written statement stating that he borrowed an amount of Rs.15,000/- only from the plaintiff and at that time he took the signatures of the defendant on blank promissory note paper except mentioning the promissory note amount as Rs.15,000/-. Later the defendant cleared the amount of Rs.15,000/- with interest upto date. As he demanded higher rate of interest, some disputes arose between them and the plaintiff has not returned the said promissory note. In order to harass the defendant, the plaintiff fabricated the said promissory note as Rs.75,000/- and filed the suit. It is not disputed that the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1, whereas the 2nd attestor and the scribe were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 to establish the promissory note. At that stage the above I.A. was filed stating that the figure Rs.15,000/- has been altered to Rs.75,000/- and filled up the pronote with a view to get wrongful gain and the same should be sent to the expert. The trial court after considering the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 and on perusal of Ex.A1 promissory note concluded that with the naked eye one can easily find the expansion of figures in writing and no suspicious circumstances arise therein to seek opinion from the handwriting expert and that the petition is filed just to gain some more time. The petitioner also did not make any effort to file the petition along with the written statement but came up with the application only after closer of the evidence of the plaintiff, which is nothing but to procrastinate the litigation. It is now fairly well settled that the evidence of handwriting expert cannot outweigh the direct evidence adduced by the plaintiff in establishing the execution of the pronote and passing of consideration. In view of the same, the discretion exercised by the trial court does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 24th September 2010 lmv