THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4716 OF 2009 ORDER: The defendant filed this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the correctness of the docket order dated 9.09.2009 passed by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari District in dismissing I.A.No.441 of 2009 in O.S.No.722 of 2007. In the suit filed against the defendant on the basis of the pro- note dated 18.11.2005 the defendant availed the remedy of sending the suit pro-note to hand writing expert for comparison to compare the disputed thumb impression of the petitioner on the pro note with that of the petitioner in I.A.No.217 of 2008. When the document was sent to the finger print Bureau-cum-CID, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, he compared the thumb impression on the pro-note with that of the admitted signature of the petitioner and filed his report on 30.06.2009 stating that the disputed thumb impression against the name of the petitioner on the promissory note dated 18.11.2008 for Rs.3,00,000/- marked as ‘D’, requires clear ridge characteristics for the purpose of establishing identity. Hence, it is unfit for comparison. In view of the same, the petitioner filed the present I.A.No.441 of 2009 for sending the suit pro-note to another expert along with her admitted thumb impression obtained in the open Court for comparison. The lower Court by the impugned order, rightly dismissed the application holding that the opinion of the expert shows that the document is unfit for comparison, and even if it is sent to another expert it will not serve any purpose. Hence this revision petition. It is well settled that the expert’s opinion is not a substantive piece of evidence and the same has to be established by the plaintiff about the execution of pro-note, by leading other evidence if any. It is well settled by the Division Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in M. Ramesh Babu v. M Sreedhar[1] that there is no bar to take the opinion of a second expert without setting aside the earlier report. However, it is not desirable to appoint second commissioner or to refer to the second expert without there being any valid reasons. There should be special circumstances and the Court must record its reasons for sending the document to the second expert or for appointing the second commissioner. In the present case, since the circumstances do not warrant for sending the document to a second expert, the same will be a futile exercise. Therefore, the discretion exercised by the lower Court does not suffer from any manifest illegality warranting interference of this Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ____________________ (A. GOPAL REDDY, J.) 22nd October, 2009 Js. [1] 2009 (2) LS 360