THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.2777 of 2010 ORDER: The respondents filed O.S.No.241 of 2002 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoty, against the petitioners, for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 11.03.1986. Petitioners disputed the signature of the deceased-1st petitioner on the agreement. On a request made by them, the trial Court sent the same to an Handwriting Expert, by name, Ashok Kashyap. It is stated that the Expert gave his opinion stating that the signature on the agreement was forged one. The 1st respondent filed an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act (for short ‘the Act’), with a request to send the document for analysis by the A.P. Forensic Science Laboratory, obviously, for second opinion. That application was allowed and it is stated that the laboratory gave an opinion to the effect that his signature on the agreement of sale is genuine. In this background, the petitioners filed I.A.No.151 of 2010 before the trial Court under Section 45 of the Act, with a request to send the document for analysis by another Handwriting Expert or Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi, for investigation. The application was opposed by the respondents. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through order, dated 31.03.2010. The same is challenged in this revision. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. I.A.No.151 of 2010 was third of the applications filed under Section 45 of the Act, for the same purpose. The petitioners ought to have raised objection, when an application was filed for sending the document to a second expert. Unless the trial Court sets aside the report submitted by an Expert, it cannot be required to send the same document to a second Expert. Even now, while the petitioners can place reliance upon the report, which is in their favour, and submit objections for the one that is against them, the respondents can do vice versa. The views expressed by the Experts are not conclusive, and it is ultimately for the trial Court to come to a conclusion, on consideration of the reports and objections submitted in relation thereto. Sending of the document to a third Expert, even when there exist two reports on the same document is unjust, untenable and unknown to law. The trial Court has rightly dismissed the I.A. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dated:07.07.2010 GJ