THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.R.P.No. 2162 of 2011 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 25-04-2011 passed in I.A.No.241 of 2011 in O.S.No.392 of 2010, on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Dhone. 2. The petitioner herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.392 of 2010. 3. The respondent herein filed O.S.No.392 of 2010 against the petitioner for recovery of money based on the pronote. During the course of trial, the petitioner filed the present application under Order 26 Rule 10 (A) CPC and Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to send the promissory Note, Ex.A-1, along with the alleged endorsement made on the promissory note to the handwriting expert for comparison and opinion. The said application was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has not filed any documentary evidence to substantiate his plea of forgery. 4. The case of the respondent herein before the trial Court is that the petitioner herein originally borrowed a sum of Rs.35,000/- on 08-09-2003 and executed a promissory note, Ex.A-1, and subsequently on 08-03-2006, the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.100/- and singed on the promissory note. The plea taken by the petitioner herein is that he has taken a loan of Rs.5,000/-, but number ‘3’ is added before the number ‘5’ and in words place also, work ‘mupai’ is added before the ‘idu’. Therefore, there was a material alteration. 5. Though the plea was taken by the petitioner that he did not pay Rs.100/- on 08-03-2006, but he admitted in his cross-examination that he paid an amount of Rs.100/- on 08-03-2006. However, he did not make any endorsement on the back of the Ex.A-1, pronote. Admittedly, the evidence of petitioner is not yet completed. Whether the fact that petitioner has paid an amount of Rs.100/- on 08-03-2006 or not is to be proved after adducing petitioner’s evidence. Therefore, in the first instance, the defendant has to let in evidence on that aspect. If the petitioner admits in his evidence for the part payment of the same, then the question of sending document to the expert’s opinion does not arise. Therefore, the application filed by the petitioner has to be considered after completion of his entire evidence. 6. Under those circumstances, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the same is accordingly set aside directing the trial Court to pass appropriate orders on the application filed by the petitioner after the evidence of the petitioner is completed. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. __________________ 16th August 2011 kvr