HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 6152 OF 2010 DATED 20TH OCTOBER, 2011 BETWEEN Bethina Venkata Prasad …….Petitioner and Sri Nayudu Veerraju ……Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 6152 OF 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed aggrieved by the order dated 19.10.2010 whereby the learned Senior Civil Judge (FTC),Kovvur, W.G.District, dismissed the application in I.A.No. 140 of 2010 in OS.No. 77 of 2006 filed by the petitioner/defendant under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send the disputed signature on the original guarantee letter dated 15.09.2005 to an handwriting expert, Forensic Sciences, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, Hyderabad for comparison with the admitted signatures on the written statement, vakalat and agreement with RWS Office, Kovvur, for second opinion. Briefly the facts of the case are that: the respondent herein filed the aforesaid said suit for recovery of the amount basing on the alleged promissory note. It is the case of the petitioner that the said promissory note is a fabricated document. Earlier, the petitioner filed IA.No. 176 of 2009 seeking to send the disputed document dated 15.9.2005 to a handwriting expert, which was allowed. However, the Expert returned the same without any opinion. Again the petitioner filed I.A.No. 53 of 2010 seeking very same relief and the said application was ordered. This time, the Expert sent the opinion to the Court below stating that the disputed signature was not tallying with the admitted signature and that there are differences in both the signatures. Being not satisfied with the said resoning, the petitioner filed the impugned application to send the disputed document to handwriting expert for second opinion. The Court below dismissed the said application. Hence the revision petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Court below failed to exercise its discretion conferred on it in sending the alleged document to handwriting expert for obtaining second opinion. He submitted that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent/plaintiff if the alleged document is allowed to be sent to the handwriting expert for second opinion. He relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in M.Ramesh Babu Vs. M.Sreedhar {2009 (5) ALD 187} in support of his contention. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Perused the case file. Admittedly pursuant to the order of the Court below in I.A. No. 53 of 2010, the handwriting expert opined that the disputed signature on the alleged original guarantee letter was not tallying with the admitted signature on the written statement, vakalat and agreement with RWS Office. Dissatisfied with the same, the petitioner filed impugned application, which was dismissed by the Court below observing that filing of the impugned application was nothing but to drag on the proceedings and that the opinion of the handwriting expert cannot over ride the direct evidence. If the petitioner is not satisfied with the report of the expert, it is very well open for him to file objections and request the Court to reject the opinion of the expert. The petitioner is having ample opportunity to cross-examine the expert and elicit information from him. It is well settled legal position that the opinion of the second expert can be sought for only when there are grave irregularities in the opinion of the first expert or when the Court comes to a conclusion that the opinion of the expert if biased and that in absence of any such allegation, the opinion of the second expert cannot be sought for. The learned trial Judge was therefore right in rejecting the impugned application of the petitioner. In the decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in M.Ramesh Babu (supra), wherein the party to the lis said to have been executed the pronote was in the habit of signing in different styles in each document with different spelling and in those peculiar facts and circumstances, and as the expert had not compared all the specimen signatures sent to him, those signatures were referred to expert for examination and comparison thereon. As such, the reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner would not support the case of the petitioner. It is true that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent if the impugned application is allowed for second opinion. For the sake of argument, but not otherwise, even if the prayer of the revison petitioner is allowed to stand, it will not attain finality, because, the learned trial Judge in his discretion, may accept the expert's evidence or may not accept the same. Further, if for any reason the trial court decides the issue merely on the basis of the expert evidence, the same is capable of correction in appeal, if any, preferred by the aggrieved party. The opinion of an expert with regard to the signature or handwriting in the disputed document is not conclusive, but is only a piece of evidence and it is for the Court to arrive at its own conclusion on appreciation. The trial Court can form its own opinion and come to an independent conclusion. Even in the decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it was observed that it is not desirable to refer to the second expert without there being any valid reasons and exceptional circumstances warranting the same. I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the order under revision warranting interference in this revision petition. The Civil Revision Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. --------------------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 20TH OCTOBER, 2011. Msnro