UTTAMCHAND SARMA Vs. JASTI CHINNA VEERABHADRARAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the orders passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem in I.A. 263 of 2003 in O.S. No. 62 of 1997 dated 9-4-2003.

(2.) The facts which are necessary to dispose of this case are, that the respondent herein filed a suit for recovery of amounts basing on three promissory notes alleged to have been executed by the petitioner herein on different dates for Rs. l,00,000.00 each. The respondent herein was examined as PW.1 and the others were examined as PWs 2 to 5. When the suit was coming up for defendant's evidence, the defendant i.e. the petitioner herein has come up with this application i.e. I.A. 263 of 2003 for sending up of the promissory notes to an expert to ascertain as to whether the said promissory notes were executed on different dates or were executed on a particular day simultaneously. However, the Court below refused to entertain the said petition and accordingly dismissed it. Hence, this revision.

(3.) According to the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Satyanarayana, the petitioner does not know the respondent at all and he gave four blank promissory notes in favour of his partner Venkateswarlu for Rs. 10, 000.00 each and now the said Venkateswarlu, may be in collusion with the respondent herein, fabricated the said amount from Rs. 10, 000/- to Rs. 1,00,000.00 and got instituted the present suit as if he executed the promissory notes for Rs. l,00,000.00 eaeh, Further, It is the thrust of argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said blank promissory notes were given on a single day but not on different dates, According to him, if the said promissory notes are gent to an export, the expert can give an opinion as to whether all the promissory notes were executed on a particular day or on different dates, In this connection, he has drawn my attention to a judgment of this Court in Uppu Jhansi Lakshmi Bai v. J, Venkateswara Rao, AIR 1994 AP 90.