THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1661 of 2007 ORDER: Aggrieved by the order of the learned IV Additional Senior Civ Judge (FTC), Vijayawada, dated 13.02.2007 rejecting I.A.No.866 of 200 in O.S.No.126 of 2002, the plaintiff seeks a revision under Article 227 o the Constitution. The petitioner filed I.A.No.866 of 2006 under Section 45 of th Evidence Act r/w Section 151 C.P.C to send the suit agreement of sale Ex.A.1 for comparison of the same with the signatures available o Exs.A.14 and B.2. This application was rejected. Hence, the revision. The suit is for specific performance of Ex.A.1-agreement of sal purportedly executed by the first defendant. The first defendant denied hi signature on Ex.A.1. Another document indisputably executed by the firs defendant was marked as Ex.B.2 and on the revision petitioner-plainti instance, Exs.A.1 and B.2 were sent to a handwriting expert, wh pronounced an opinion that the signature on Ex.A.1 was forged. Th revision petitioner filed I.A.No.390 of 2006 seeking a second expe opinion. That application was rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner filed th present I.A.No.866 of 2006 claiming that he subsequently discovere Ex.A.14, wherein the mother of the first defendant-Sistla Ram Lakshmamma has signed the document as an attestor and this documen is required to be sent to the Government Forensic Science Laboratory Hyderabad to compare the disputed signatures of the first defendant an the mother with the admitted signatures. The Court below in rejecting the application held that as the earlie expert opinion, pursuant to I.A.No.861 of 2005 was already on record; th Expert had already testified as P.W.5; who cross examined at length by th revision petitioner; all technical questions were put to the Expert wh reiterated his opinion; and also gave a detailed explanation as to how h had arrived at the conclusion that Ex.A.1 was forged document, there i sufficient evidence on record for appreciation of the document as a whole The lower Court also held that the opinion of an Expert is not conclusiv proof and that the Court must eventually conclude on the vitality of Ex.A.1 on considering the evidence in the suit. The Court further held that as th other application of the petitioner in I.A.No.390 of 2006 for a second expe opinion, was already rejected, there was no merit in the presen application, which the Court below implied was a camouflage to seek second expert opinion. This court discerns no error in the application of law or the exercis of discretion by the court below, warranting interference in the revision Since the petitioner had already applied for an expert opinion fo comparison of the signatures on Ex.A.1 with Ex.B.2, he could well hav sought for comparison of the disputed signatures on Ex.A.1 with th signatures on Ex.A.14 as well, which was already on record by that date The petitioner cannot be permitted to seek successive opinions on th disputed signatures of Ex.A.1 in installments by a series of petitions. Thi is a grossly inefficient and negligent strategy which causes prejudice no only to the first defendant but to the general public as well, by waste o valuable Court time. For the above reasons, there are no merits. The Civil Revisio Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM Dated: 01.07.2010 va