THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6214 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.64 of 2005 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur against the respondent for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 25.02.2004, in respect of the suit schedule property. The respondent denied the very execution of the document. The trial of the suit commenced. Obviously to disprove the plea of the respondent, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1053 of 2007 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act with a prayer to send the disputed agreement of sale to the hand-writing expert. The trial Court allowed the I.A. and sent the same for examination by the A.P. Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad. In a report submitted by the Laboratory, it was pointed out that the scribe mentioned in the agreement did not write the document. The petitioner naturally felt aggrieved by this. With a view to have a second opinion on the issue, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1097 of 2007 under the same provision with a prayer to send the document for opinion to another expert. The application was opposed by the respondent. Through its order, dated 26.08.2009, the trial Court dismissed the I.A. Hence, this revision. Sri K.S.R.Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that though I.A.No.1097 of 2009 happens to be a second application for the same purpose, there is nothing in law, which prohibits such a course of action. He contends that in his report, the expert did not furnish any reasons in support of the conclusions arrived at by him and thereby, the necessity for second report has arisen. Even assuming that the report submitted by the expert in pursuance of the order passed in I.A.No.1053 of 2009 is bereft of any reasons, it needs to be noticed that the report of an expert is only of persuasive value. It cannot be treated as final. It is always open to the petitioner to attack the report on various grounds. Further, he can also adduce oral evidence to prove his case. The trial Court has to take various aspects into account while recording its finding as to the truth and genunity of the agreement of sale. Though the law does not prohibit the sending of a document to another expert, necessary basis must exist for the same. It is only when the report submitted by an expert is found to be untenable for any specific reasons, that the feasibility of sending the document to another expert can be considered. As long as the first report is not set aside by the Court for any reason, an application for sending that very document to another expert cannot be sustained in law. Therefore, the civil revision petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to put forward his contention as regards the truth and genunity of the agreement of sale at the time of arguments. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:18.01.2010 kdl