THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.4269 & 4276 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: The petitioner herein is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff, who filed the suit O.S.No.42 of 2004 against the petitioner herein for recovery of money basing on the suit pro-note. It is the case of the petitioner-defendant that when the matter was coming up for his evidence, he had filed an application I.A.No.26 of 2006 for sending the suit pro-note to the handwriting experts for comparison of his signature on the pro-note with the admitted signatures on the vakalat, written statement and also the signatures taken in the Court. The trial court vide its order, dated 04-04-2006 allowed the said application. Thereafter, the trial court sent the said documents to the handwriting experts for comparison and opinion. It is stated that the handwriting experts returned the said documents on 01-05-2008 opining that they could not draw a conclusive opinion on the available material to give a specific opinion on the signatures in dispute. It appears that the handwriting experts further stated that unless admitted signatures at the relevant point of time are furnished, it may not be possible for them to give any opinion. When the matter was posted on 14-08-2008, for the evidence of the defendant, there was no representation and, therefore, the matter was adjourned to 25-09-2008. As there was no representation on 25-09-2008, again the matter was adjourned to 29-09-2008. On 29-09-2008, since there was no representation on behalf of the defendant, the evidence on behalf of the defendant was closed. Accordingly, after closing the evidence, the defendant filed I.A.Nos.591 of 2008 and 44 of 2009 respectively for reopening of the case for recording further evidence and to send the self same previous documents to the handwriting experts for comparison and opinion. A perusal of the impugned orders goes to show that the trial court, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, dismissed the said applications on the ground that in view of the opinion already expressed by the handwriting experts, no useful purpose would be served by sending the self same documents to the handwriting experts. In the instant case, the petitioner-defendant is not questioning the legality and validity of the experts’ opinion but he wants to send the self same documents to the handwriting experts for comparison and opinion. Therefore, I am of the opinion that taking of such exercise is a futile exercise and no useful purpose would be served. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the trial court, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, had rightly dismissed the said applications, and as such, I do not see any infirmity legal or otherwise to interfere with the impugned orders under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. However, if any admitted signatures are existing at the relevant point of time when the pro-note was executed or if the petitioner desirous to take any other steps questioning the said experts opinion, it is open to the petitioner to take appropriate steps before the trial court by filing appropriate applications. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 05-03-2010 Prv