HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.R.P. No. 17 OF 2011 Friday, the twenty Eighth day of January, Two Thousand and Eleven Between Shaik Maqbool Petitioner AND Nazima Begum Respondent ORAL ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 20 of 2006 aggrieved by the order dated 19.11.2010 passed in I.A. No. 4022 of 2010 by the learned District Judge, Guntur, dismissing the petition filed under Order 26 Rule 10(2) read with Sec.45 of the Evidence Act to send the suit document dated 26.8.2002, summons, acknowledgement and signatures of the defendant taken in the court to an Expert i.e. Truth Labs, Hyderabad, for comparison and opinion thereon. The plaintiff filed the above petition to send document dated 26.8.2002, summons, acknowledgement and signatures of the defendant taken in the court to an Expert i.e. Truth Labs, Hyderabad, for comparison and opinion thereon. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that during the course of the cross examination, there are several loopholes which are in contrast to the opinion of the Expert given earlier and, hence, prayed to send the petition schedule documents for comparison and opinion thereon. Whereas, it is the case of the defendant that on the earlier occasion such an application filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the court on 16.9.2010, which had become final as no revision had been filed assailing the said order. It is also stated that the evidence of an Expert is not the conclusive proof and second opinion is also permissible under Evidence Act. The court below, by the order impugned has dismissed the application. Aggrieved thereby the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. The court below observed that the earlier application in I.A. No.2752 of 2010 filed by the plaintiff for the same relief was dismissed by order dated 16.9.2010 and nothing was attributed except saying that the documents have to be sent to the a different expert. The court below further rightly observed that filing of successive applications for the same relief cannot be resorted to merely for the reason that the Expert’s opinion is not favouring the petitioner. Having gone through the impugned order, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned herein inasmuch as the court has given cogent and convincing reasons. Admittedly, the Expert who gave opinion was cross-examined at length. Having gone through the entire material available on record, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned warranting interference. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed No order as to costs. __________________________ Justice Ghulam Mohammed January 28, 2011 MAS