THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH C.R.P.No.407 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner herein is the defendant in the suit in O.S.No.270 of 2008 filed by the respondent herein for recovery of money basing on the pronote. After completion of evidence on both sides and when the matter is posted for arguments, the defendant filed I.A.No.807 of 2009 under Section 45 of the Evidence Act for sending full payment receipt, dated 20- 07-2008, which was marked as one of the exhibits, said to have been executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant, to the Government Handwriting Expert, Hyderabad, for comparison with admitted signatures of the plaintiff on the plaint. The said application was opposed by the respondent herein. The court below vide its order, dated 08-12-2009, dismissed the said application holding that the defendant has already examined the persons, who were alleged to be present at the time of payment, as DWs.3 and 4 and when the evidence has already been adduced, the expert’s opinion cannot override the direct evidence of the witnesses and therefore, it is not necessary to send payment receipt for expert’s opinion. It is further observed that if necessary, the court itself can compare the signatures under Section 73 of the Evidence Act. Aggrieved thereby, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. The petitioner-defendant has taken a plea in the written statement that he has already discharged pronote debt in the presence of elders, plaintiff and his son-in-law on 20-07-2008 and the plaintiff received the said amount and executed a payment receipt on 20-07-2008 in the presence of elders. In fact, the defendant also examined the witnesses, who were said to be present at the time of payment as DWs.3 and 4. In addition to the evidence adduced by the defendant to prove payment receipt, dated 20-07-2008, which was already marked as exhibit, he would like to send the said payment receipt to the handwriting expert for comparison of signature on payment receipt, which is said to be belonging to the plaintiff with that of the admitted signature of the plaintiff on the plaint. Without there being any expert’s opinion, ultimately if the Court comes to a conclusion that the signatures are tallying, then it may cause prejudice to the plaintiff. Therefore, to rule out all possible defences of the respective parties and as the defendant is entitled to prove and establish his pleadings, by adducing appropriate evidence, in addition to examining the witnesses to the payment receipt and by sending the payment receipt to the Handwriting Expert for comparison of signature on the payment receipt with that of the admitted signatures of the plaintiff on the plaint, I am of the opinion that dismissal of the said application on the ground that the evidence is already over and that the Expert’s opinion cannot override the direct evidence, is erroneous and without any justification. Therefore, the court below ought to have sent the said payment receipt to the Government Handwriting expert for comparison with that of the admitted signatures of the plaintiff on the plaint. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order of the court below. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 15-07-2011 Prv