THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5454 of 2009 ORDER: The respondent filed O.S.No.209 of 2006 against the petitioners in the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem for recovery of certain amount on the basis of a promissory note. At the instance of the petitioners, the promissory note was sent for opinion of an expert at Bangalore. The expert is said to have given her opinion in favour of the petitioners. They filed I.A.No.1925 of 2007 under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C. with a prayer to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to record the evidence of the expert. It was pleaded that the expert is likely to leave for U.S.A. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through order, dated 04.11.2009, on the ground that the respondent did not file any objections to the report. The same is challenged in this revision. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent. The opinion rendered by an expert is only of persuasive value to the Court and ultimately, the Court has to arrive at a just and proper conclusion on comparison. It is, no doubt, true that the expert has submitted a report in favour of the petitioners. The necessity to examine the expert would arise if only the respondent submits objections to the report. The record discloses that no such objections were filed. At any rate, the cause pleaded by the petitioners for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner ceases to exist, since the expert may have returned by this time. Therefore, the civil revision petition is dismissed. If the petitioners are so advised, they can procure the presence of the expert as a witness. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:28.07.2010 kdl