THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CRP No.3567 of 2009 ORDER: The revision petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.44 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anantapur. The said suit was filed by the respondent herein for recovery of money based upon Ex.A-1 promissory note. In the written statement itself, it was pleaded by the defendant/revision petitioner that there was a material alteration in the Ex.A-1- promissory note and a specific issue has also been framed to that effect. While the suit was coming up for arguments, the defendant/revision petitioner filed I.A.No.373 of 2009 with a prayer to send Ex.A-1-promissory note to the Hand-Writing Expert for his opinion with regard to the alleged material alterations. The said application was dismissed by the Court below by order dated 4.6.2009. Challenging the said order, the present Revision Petition is filed. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. The law is well settled that the opinion rendered by an expert is only a supporting material and cannot be treated as conclusive. It is also held by the Courts in various decisions that it is for the Court to come to a conclusion as to the genuineness of the documents produced before the Court and in case the Court is capable of forming the opinion on the strength of oral and documentary evidence itself, the question of sending the document for expert opinion under Section 73 of the Evidence Act does not arise. As could be seen from the material on record, a specific issue has been settled with regard to the objection taken by the defendant that there is a material alteration in Ex.A-1 and the counsel for the defendant had cross-examined P.Ws.1 and 3 with regard to the alleged material alterations. In the circumstances, the Court below opined that it was not necessary to send the document for expert opinion at this stage. The said discretion exercised by the Court below an application of mind to the material available on record can not be held to be erroneous. Hence, the dismissal of the I.A cannot be held to be illegal. However, it is made clear that in case it is established by the petitioner at a later stage that it is necessary to send the document for the expert opinion with regard to the alleged material alterations, the same shall be considered independently in accordance with law. With the above observation, the Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. _______________ Justice G.Rohini Date:06.08.2009 Note: Issue CC in Three Days. B/O mrb