HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1222 of 2011 . DATED 20th July, 2011. BETWEEN Penumatsa Suryanarayana Rau …Petitioner And Bellamkonda Butchi Babu ….Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1222 OF 2011. ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed aggrieved by the order dated 07.03.2011 whereunder and whereby the learned Senior Civil Judge, Tanuku, West Godavari District dismissed I.A.No. 787 of 2010 in O.S.No. 119 of 2004 filed by the petitioner/defendant under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking to send the suit pronote to a private Handwriting Expert. The respondent/plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioner/defendant for recovery of an amount based on a pronote. Earlier, the petitioner/defendant filed I.A.No. 119 of 2004 seeking to send the suit pronote to an Handwriting Expert and the said application was allowed and the Expert gave his opinion on 23.09.2008 expressing his inability to ascertain the exact age of the writings and the signature appending on the pronote. The said opinion was received by the Court below on 17.12.2008. The petitioner/defendant again filed I.A.No. 787 of 2010 seeking to send the suit pronote to another private Handwriting Expert to find out the time gap in between the hand writings filled in the blanks of the body of the pronote and the signature of the defendant on the pronote. The Court below dismissed the said application by the order under revision. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the order under revision is vitiated as the earlier expert expressed his opinion that it is not possible to ascertain the exact age of the writings and the signature appended on the pronote. He contended that in as much as the earlier expert did not give any opinion, the present impugned application became necessary. He also argues that the impugned application was not filed seeking second opinion after an opinion was already obtained from an Expert. In support of his contentions he relied on the judgment of this Court in S.Neelakantam Vs. Maharudraiah Swamy { 2010 (5) ALT 128}. A similar issue fell for consideration in the aforementioned decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. In the said decision, this Court held that when the defendant disputed the alleged interpolations of the suit pronote, the truth or otherwise of the same has a material bearing on the questions in controversy between the parties. The rights of the parties to the suit property depend upon the truth or validity of contents of the suit document. It is no doubt true that, the ratio decidendi in the said case applies to the facts of the case on hand. Whatever the expert says may be an opinion, yet it may be of valuable assistance in appreciating the probabilities arising out of the evidence on record. Apart from the same, it is not a case of seeking a second opinion of Expert in as much as the earlier Expert expressed his inability to express his opinion. The Court below was therefore not correct in saying that the request of the petitioner/defendant which was already considered in the earlier application for the very self same purpose cannot be allowed. However, in the case on hand, pursuant to the order passed by the Court below in the earlier application in I.A.No. 119 of 2004, the Expert gave opinion on 23.09.2008, which was received by the Court below on 17.12.2008. Nearly after 2½ years, the present impugned application was filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking to send the suit pronote to another private hand writing expert. No reason, much less a valid reason had been assigned either in the affidavit filed in support of the impugned application or in the present revision, for the aforesaid inordinate delay in approaching the Court below seeking to send the pronote document to another private hand writing expert. It obviously shows that the intention of the petitioner/defendant is only to protract the matter. In that view of the matter, the Court below is correct in dismissing the impugned application on that ground through the order under revision. I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the order under revision warranting interference in this Civil Revision Petition, which is dismissed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. ------------------------------------ -- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 20th July, 2011. Msnro