THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN C.R.P. Nos.971, 972, 973 and 974 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: In this batch of four civil revision petitions, which arise out of interlocutory applications filed in O.S.Nos.243 and 255 OF 2004, the defendant is common. Both the suits were filed by two different plaintiffs seeking recovery of money, allegedly due from the petitioner-defendant, on the basis of a promissory note. Since evidence had already been adduced in both the suits, and the matter was listed for arguments, two applications were filed in each of the two Suits to reopen the suit and to examine the finger- print expert. The court below dismissed the I.As. holding that this Court had earlier rejected such a request to send the documents for expert’s opinion, and in the light of the order of the High Court whose orders had been suppressed by the plaintiff, there were no merits in the petitions. Aggrieved thereby the present revision petitions. Sri O.Manohar Reddy, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that, while the earlier applications resulting in the orders being passed in the earlier C.R.Ps, were to refer the promissory note for examination by a finger expert, in the present I.As. the petitioner – defendant had merely sought to have the finger expert examined as a witness, and the Court below had erred in relying on the order passed in the earlier C.R.Ps. to reject such applications filed by the petitioner – defendant. On the other hand, Sri K.Maheswara Rao, Learned Counsel for the respondents, would draw attention of this Court to the earlier order passed in C.R.Ps.Nos.1226 and 1267 of 2007 dated 31.8.2007 in support of his submission that, since this Court had permitted the petitioner to examine a finger print expert within a period of one month and as the petitioner had not availed the opportunity within the time granted by this Court, it was not now open to him to file fresh applications to have the finger print expert examined as a witness. In its order, in C.R.P.Nos.1226 and 1267 of 2007 dated 31.8.2007, this Court held that no circumstance, which compelled the defendant to file such applications requesting the Court to send the suit promissory notes to an handwriting expert for comparison and opinion, had been set forth in the applications or in the written statements filed by him earlier in both the suits. Having so observed this Court held as under: “It is now well settled that handwriting or finger prints expert is a witness of the party whether he is a plaintiff or a defendant. The opinion can be obtained from an expert independently by the parties and file the same before the court and can seek the examination of that expert who rendered such an opinion as a witness on his side. Such a course is open and is not against the law nor has there been any prohibition for that course. It is, therefore, open to the defendant to seek an opinion from an expert on the contentious question of due execution of the suit promissory notes and file the same and can seek to examine the expert on his side as a witness. But the request of the defendant to send the suit promissory notes to an expert by the Court, for the reasons hereinabove discussed, cannot be permitted. Both the Civil Revision Petitions, therefore, must fail since there is nothing illegal, irregular or incorrect in the impugned orders passed by the Court below. However, the revision petitioner/defendant can seek an adjournment in the suits for a period of one month and in the meanwhile can get an opinion from the expert in respect of the execution of suit promissory notes. With the above observation both the Civil Revision Petitions fail and are dismissed but without costs” The petitioner herein filed applications before the Court below on 23.1.2008 and the Court below, by its order dated 31.12.2008, held that, since the time fixed by the Court below had elapsed, it was not open to permit the defendant to get the finger print expert examined after expiry of the time fixed by the High Court. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application in C.R.P.M.P.No.7837 of 2009 in C.R.P.No.1267 of 2007 requesting this Court to enlarge the time granted in the C.R.P.s for a period of 30 days from the date of the application. The said application for extension of time was dismissed by this Court by order dated 28.10.2009. In this factual background and, in as much as the applications were filed, to examine the finger print expert as a witness, much after the period of one month stipulated by this Court in the earlier C.R.Ps., the order of the Court below cannot be said to suffer from such an error as to necessitate interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. All the four C.R.Ps. are, accordingly, dismissed. ____________ 15-7-2011 asp