THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Civil Revision Petition No.6260 of 2009 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order, dated 21.10.2009, passed by the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar in I.A.No.1103 of 2009 in O.S.No.1515 of 2001, whereby and whereunder the application filed by the respondent-plaintiff under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, 1872 to send the suit promissory note, dated 01.12.1998, Ex.A1, along with the admitted signatures of the defendant-petitioner herein to Expert for comparison, was allowed. The learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant contended that the respondent-plaintiff filed the present application belatedly and due to lapse of time, the signatures of the persons may change and the Expert may not be in a position to give his opinion correctly. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. The respondent-plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.95,418/- based on the promissory note, Ex.A1, dated 01.12.1998, and the suit is coming up for arguments. At that stage, the respondent filed the present application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, 1872 seeking to send the suit promissory note, Ex.A1, along with the admitted signatures of the defendant- respondent herein to the Expert for comparison, as the defendant has categorically denied his signatures and also handwriting on Ex.A1. The petitioner-defendant filed counter opposing the application. The trial Court, while taking into consideration the fact that the suit is filed for recovery of amount basing on the suit promissory note, which is a crucial document for deciding the issue on hand, it is held that it is necessary to send Ex.A1 along with Ex.A6, dated 12.02.2000, issued by the petitioner-defendant on behalf of his client as a counsel, which contains his admitted signatures to Expert for comparison. It also held that as there is not much time gap between Ex.A1 and Ex.A6, they can safely be sent to the Expert for comparison. Accordingly, through the impugned order, the trial Court allowed the application. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material on record, this Court discerns no infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference while exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is settled principle of law that the opinion of the Expert is not final and it only renders assistance to the Court to come to a conclusion for deciding the issue on hand. In the circumstances, the civil revision petition fails and is accordingly, dismissed. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date:18.02.2010 VGB