HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4059 OF 2011 DATED 14TH October, 2011 BETWEEN Bandakavai Ramalinga Sarma …….Petitioner and Ravuri Satya Anantharam ……Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4059 OF 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed aggrieved by the order dated 26.8.2011 passed in I.A.No. 2534 of 2010 in OS.No. 233 of 2007 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. By the order under revision, the learned trial Judge rejected the prayer of the petitioner/defendant to send the Ex.A.1 suit pronote to handwriting expert for comparison and opinion thereon. The respondent/plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for recovery of money basing on the promissory note. It is the case of the petitioner from the institution of the suit that the said promissory note is a rank forgery one. Both parties adduced evidence during the course of trial of the suit. At the time when the suit was being posted for arguments, the petitioner/defendant filed the impugned application with the prayer stated supra. The learned trial Judge dismissed the same observing that the prayer of the petitioner is belated and that the opinion of the expert is not a conclusive proof and it would not over ride the direct evidence. Hence this CRP. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, besides the grounds raised in the revision, submitted that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent if the prayer of the petitioner is allowed by sending the disputed document to handwriting expert for his opinion. Heard. Perused the case file. It is well settled that no time could be fixed for filing applications under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for sending the disputed signature or writings to the handwriting expert for comparison and opinion and same the shall be left open to the discretion of the court for exercising such discretion more particularly when exigencies so demand, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the each case. In the case on hand, when it is the case of the petitioner from the date of the institution of the suit that the alleged suit pronote Ex.A.1 is a rank forgery, nothing prevented him to seek the present prayer either before or immediately after filing the written statement or at least during the trial. If the dispute is as to the execution of document, by one of the parties to the suit, the application must be filed before the evidence of such party is closed. The reason is that, the witness can be confronted with the document, together with the opinion obtained, in relation thereto, during the course of evidence. Sending a document for expert's opinion, after the concerned witness has been examined in chief and cross; renders the very exercise, almost futile. The witness would not be available for being confronted with the evidence at the later stages. Further, if the prayer of the petitioner is allowed to stand it will not attain finality, and 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. As rightly held by the trial Judge that the opinion of the handwriting expert is not conclusive and it would not supercede the direct evidence, I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the order under revision. The Civil Revision Petition is therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. --------------------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 14th October, 2011 Msnro