This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 7.1.2009 in E.A.No.458 of 2008 in E.A.No.533 of 2005 in E.P.No.135 of 2004 in O.S.No.40 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur.

O.S.No.40 of 2002 was filed by the 1st respondent herein for recovery of money allegedly due from the 2nd respondent herein under a promissory note dated 7.6.2001. The said suit was decreed on 8.4.2003 and pursuant thereto E.P.No.135 of 2004 was filed for realization of the decretal amount by sale of the properties shown in the E.P. Schedule. While so, the Revision Petitioner filed E.A.No.533 of 2005 claiming title to Item No.II of the E.P. Schedule property on the basis of a Registered Will dated 22.6.1998 executed by his mother Smt. N. Ramakka. It is claimed by him that the said property originally belonged to his deceased father by name N. Muniratnam, who expired on 15.4.1980. During his lifetime, he executed an Un-Registered Will dated 10.3.1979 in favour of his wife N. Ramakka (mother of the petitioner) and on his death the property covered by the said Will devolved on Smt. N. Ramakka. Subsequently she executed a Registered Will dated 22.6.1998 in favour of the petitioner and after her death on 16.7.2005 the petitioner acquired title to the said property and has been continuing in possession and enjoyment of the same.

Pending the said claim petition - E.A.No.533 of 2005, the 1st respondent herein/decree-holder filed an application to send the Will dated 10.3.1979 executed by late N. Muniratnam to an Handwriting Expert for comparison of the signatures of the executant with that of his signatures available on a Partition Deed dated 5.3.1964. The said application was allowed and the documents were sent to a Private Hand-writing Expert who opined that the Will dated 10.3.1979 was a forged document.

Thereafter, the Revision petitioner filed E.A.No.458 of 2008 with a prayer to send the very same documents to any Government Handwriting Expert for his opinion on proper comparison of the signatures on the said documents alleging that the opinion of the Private Handwriting Expert was incorrect and biased. It was also alleged that the 1st respondent herein/decree-holder had managed to get the opinion in his favour.

The decree-holder/1st respondent herein filed his counter denying the allegations and the Court below after hearing both the parties by order dated 7.1.2009 dismissed E.A.No.458 of 2008. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record.

The law is well settled that the opinion expressed by the Handwriting Expert is not conclusive on the issue and it is always open to the parties to raise their objections to the findings/conclusions recorded by the Expert and it is also open to cross-examine the expert and elicit information from him.

In the instant case, while disputing the Un-Registered Will, dated 10.3.1979, the decree-holder requested to send the same to an Expert for comparison of the signatures of the executant with the admitted signatures on a Partition Deed dated 5.3.1964. The said application was not opposed by the Revision petitioner and accordingly the document was sent to a Private Handwriting Expert and the opinion received was against the Revision petitioner. However, the Revision petitioner instead of filing objections to the said opinion wanted to send the very same documents to another Handwriting Expert for comparison.

The learned counsel for the petitioner while placing reliance upon a decision of this Court in KORVI ROSAIAH v. MITTA SRINIVASA REDDY (2006 (3) ALT 605) contended that there is no bar as such to seek a second opinion.

The Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the decisions of this Court in R. KAMESWARA RAO v. B. SURYAPRAKASA RAO (AIR 1962 A.P. 178 (D.B.) and BOLISETTI VENKATESWARA RAO v. NADAKUDITI VENKATESWARA RAO (2