THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4157 OF 2009 Dated: 11.03.2010 Between: E.H. Gopal Reddy … Petitioner And M. Hanumantha Reddy. … Respondent THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4157 OF 2009 ORDER : The Revision petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.91 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Hindupur. The suit is filed by the respondent herein (plaintiff) for recovery of money allegedly due from the defendant/Revision petitioner under Ex.A-1 promissory note, dated 1.5.2003. The Revision petitioner/defendant filed a written statement contending that the suit promissory note was fabricated by the plaintiff in collusion with one K. Krishna Reddy and Sobharani to whom the plaintiff had lent money and the defendant had signed as a witness to the document relating to the suit transaction. While the evidence on the side of the defendant was in progress, the defendant filed I.A.No.1041 of 2009 with a prayer to send Ex.A-1 promissory note to the hand-writing expert to compare the signature on it with his admitted signatures. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff, and the Court below by order dated 13.8.2009 dismissed I.A.No.1041 of 2009. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that, in view of the specific plea taken in the written statement that Ex.A-1 promissory note was a forged and fabricated document, the Court below ought to have allowed the application, thereby giving an opportunity to the defendant to get the signatures on the suit document compared with the admitted signatures of the defendant. The law is well settled that the opinion of the hand-writing expert is not conclusive and it is only a piece of evidence which has to be taken into consideration along with the other evidence available on record. In the instant case, the trial has almost come to an end and even on the defendant’s side D.W.1 and D.W.2 were already examined. In the light of the material already on record, the Court below is of the opinion that it is not necessary at that stage to send the document in question for the opinion of expert. The judicial discretion exercised by the Court below on an application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case does not warrant any interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and accordingly the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 11.03.2010 gbs