HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI Civil revision Petition No. 5211 of 2009 Date: 27.11.2009 Between: P.Bhaskar, Ananthapur. … Petitioners And Andhra Bank, Rep., by its Branch Manager, Gooty. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No. 5211 of 2009 O R D E R: The revision petitioner is the defendant No.3 in O.S.No.16 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Family Court cum Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anantapur. The respondent herein (Plaintiff- Bank) filed the suit seeking a preliminary decree for sale of the schedule mentioned mortgaged property to recover the amounts allegedly due from the defendants 1 and 2. It is alleged that the defendants 3 and 4 are the sureties and Exs.A.5 and A.6 under which the defendants 3 and 4 deposited their title deeds with respect to schedule property and expressed their willingness to create equitable mortgage have been marked in evidence on behalf of the plaintiff. While the evidence of the defendants was in progress, the 3rd defendant filed I.A.No.205 of 2009 with a prayer to send Exs.A.5 and A.6 documents along with the admitted signatures of the defendants 3 and 4 to the handwriting expert for comparison. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff and the Court below, after hearing both the parties, dismissed the same by order dated 20.10.2009. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. As could be seen, the suit claim has been contested by the defendants 3 and 4 alleging that their signatures on Exs.A.5 and A.6 letters are forged. Having regard to the said plea, the petitioner/defendant No.3 sought expert opinion on comparison of the signatures on Exs.A.5 and A.6 with the admitted signatures on Vakalat and written statement. The Court below dismissed the application on the ground that the material available with the Court is sufficient to resolve the controversy. The law is well settled that the report of the handwriting expert is not conclusive, but only a piece of evidence and therefore, an application made by any of the parties for expert opinion cannot be ordered as a matter of course. When both the parties to the suit have already produced their evidence, it is the duty of the court on application of mind to evidence already produced to arrive at a conclusion whether it is necessary at that stage to allow the application for expert opinion. In the instant case, the evidence has almost come to an end and in the light of the evidence available on record, the Court below opined that it is not necessary to send the disputed signatures for expert opinion. It is also relevant to note that the revision petitioner seeks to send the disputed signatures on Exs.A.5 and A.6 for comparison with the signatures on the Vakalath and the written statement filed in the present suit. Admittedly, he could not produce any documents of contemporary period. In the absence of such documents of contemporary period containing the admitted signatures of the defendants 3 and 4, no purpose would be served by sending the disputed documents for expert opinion. In the circumstances, the order of the Court below in declining to send the documents for expert opinion cannot be held to be erroneous and therefore, the interference in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not warranted. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ G.ROHINI,J Date: 27.11.2009 KLP