THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P. NO. 2588 of 2011. ORDER: This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution is by the defendant in O.S.No.34 of 2007 instituted by the respondent for recovery of money under a pro-note which is secured by a mortgage as well. After the evidence on either side has been recorded, the revision petitioner/defendant filed I.A.No. 811 of 2009 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking to send the pro-note (Ex:A.1) and the letter (Ex:A.2), depositing her title deeds with the plaintiff, to a hand writing expert along with the signatures to be taken in the open court for comparison to arrive at a conclusion that the suit pro-note Ex:A.1 and the letter Ex:A.2 are not in her hand writing. However, she did not file any document containing her admitted signatures for sending the same to a hand writing expert. The court below, recording that since during the cross- examination, Dw.1 (the petitioner herein) admitted that the suit was filed on the basis of a promissory note obtained by one Raja Babu at the time when she obtained loan and since the defendant admitted her signatures on the blank promissory note and the stamp paper of a value of Rs. 100/-, no useful purpose will be served in sending the documents to a hand writing expert for comparison. The Court below further observed that since the opinion of an expert is mere opinion evidence and the defendant did not file any admitted signatures along with I.A.No. 811 of 2009, no case was made out for grant of relief in the application. This Court discerns no error in the application of law or exercise of discretion by the court below, warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. No merit in the revision, which is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 18.11.2011. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P. NO. 2588 of 2011. ORDER: Dt. 18.11.2011.