ORDER In C.R.P.No. 3191/07, this Court ordered notice before admission on 31-7-2007 and granted interim stay and on 18-9-2007 the Civil Revision Petition was admitted.Sri A. Rama Rao entered appearance and filed C.R.P.M.P.No. 2827/2008 to vacate the interim order. It is also stated by Sri Purushotham, the learned Counsel representing revision petitioner that there is a connected Civil Revision Petition C.R.P.No. 3686/2007 and hence this Court directed C.R.P.No. 3191/2007 to appear in the list along with the connected C.R.P.No. 3686/2007. The said Civil Revision Petition C.R.P.No. 3686/2007 was admitted on 20-8-2007. 2. C.R.P.No. 3191/2007 is filed against an order made in I.A.No. 199/2007 in O.S. No. 190/2004 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, wherein the revision petitioner herein - the defendant in the suit filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter in short referred to as 'the Code' for the purpose of convenience) praying for reopening of the matter on defendant's side enabling the revision petitioner to file an application to examine the expert and to get the document marked through the expert in the interest of justice. The learned Judge after recording reasons dismissed the said application without costs. Aggrieved by the same, C.R.P.No. 3191/2007 had been preferred. 3. Likewise, C.R.P.No. 3686/2007 is filed by the self-same petitioner-defendant being aggrieved of an order made in I.A.No. 200/2007 in O.S.No. 190/2004 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam. The said application was filed by the revision petitioner under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 read with Section 151 of the Code praying for sending the document to Government Handwriting Expert or to any Private Handwriting Expert for examination of the admitted signatures and disputed signatures in the interest of justice. The learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, after recording reasons dismissed the said application without costs.Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition had been preferred. 4. Sri Purshotham, the learned Counsel representing revision petitioner in both the Civil Revision Petitions would maintain that in fact no opportunity had been given to comply with the objections and the Counsel also explained the relevant docket entries and would maintain that even as per the docket proceedings, the Court had not given any opportunity to the petitioner and closed the evidence and posted the matter for arguments. The Counsel also would maintain that there is no stage for moving an application for sending the document to be examined by an Expert and in the light of the facts and circumstances, the matter to be reopened and the document in question to be sent to an Expert as prayed for. The Counsel also relied on certain decisions. 5. On the contrary, Sri Rama Rao, the learned Counsel representing respondent would maintain that the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit O.S.No. 190/2004 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam and the suit was filed for recovery of money based on a promissory note. The Counsel also would maintain that the evidence on both sides had been closed and the suit was posted for arguments on 26-3-2007 and at that stage I.A.No. 199/2007 was filed to reopen the suit and another application I.A.No. 200/2007 was filed to send the document to an Expert for the purpose of comparing the admitted signatures with the disputed signatures. The Counsel also pointed out that the revision petitioner filed I.A.No. 76/2006 to send the self-same document in question to an Expert for the purpose of examination and the same was allowed and the Handwriting Expert addressed a letter on 22-11-2006 to the effect that those documents were not sufficient to examine or compare the signatures and requested for furnishing of some more signatures and again the Handwriting Expert addressed another letter dt. 20-12-2006 to furnish the signatures. The Counsel also would contend that subsequent thereto, the Court directed the petitioner to be present before the Court to produce the other material, however, the revision petitioner did not turn up to comply with such objections and only with a view to delay the matter, these applications had been thought of. 6. Heard the Counsel. 7. As already referred to supra, the petitioner - defendant in the suit filed 2 applications I.A.No. 199/2007 and I.A.No. 200/2007 praying for reopening of the suit and also for sending the document to either Government Expert or Private Expert, as the case may be. The relevant dates and the docket proceedings had been pointed out to show that no opportunity had been given to the petitioner to comply with the objections if any and straightaway the matter had been posted for arguments. The relevant dates and the docket proceedings had been pointed out to show that no opportunity had been given to the petitioner to comply with the objections if any and straightaway the matter had been posted for arguments. Further strong reliance was placed on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Janachaitanya Housing Ltd. v. Divya Financiers1 wherein the Division Bench held that for obtaining Expert opinion, no time be fixed for filing applications seeking Expert opinion and an application can be filed even at the stage of arguments if circumstances of cases so demand and the discretion of Court to deal with such applications cannot be controlled by hard and fast rules. The Division Bench in fact had referred to the under-noted decisions:- Kaveti Sarda v. Vemineni Hymavati (2006 (4) AL T 56; Pulaparti Sankuntala Bai v. Mygapula Ramanjaneyulu (2006 (3) ALT ( 607); Guru Govindu v. Devarapu Venkataramana ( 2006 (6) ALT 17 ); Surya Dev Rao v. Ram Chander Rao ( 2003 (5) ALT 19 (SC); and Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India (2005 (5) SCJ 519 = 2005 (6) ALT 19.1 (DN SC). 8. There cannot be any quarrel relating to the said proposition to the effect that if the facts and circumstances warrant, the obtaining of an Expert opinion even at the stage when the evidence had been closed and even at the stage of advancing arguments may be, the Court in a given case may exercise the discretion. It is needless to say that this would depend upon the facts and circumstances of a particular given case and no hard and fast rule as such can be laid down. The Counsel representing respondent placed strong reliance on Kaveti Sarada v. Vemineni Hymavathi wherein the learned Judge of this Court held that the Expert Opinion is not conclusive and it is only a piece of evidence which requires to be taken into consideration along with other evidence produced by parties and ultimately it is for Court to arrive at its own conclusion on appreciation of entire evidence available on record. The Counsel also placed strong reliance on Velamala Jadadish v. Ippli Haranadha Rao wherein this Court held that in a suit filed on the strength of a promissory note, the plea of the defendant that it is a forged document, an application filed during trial at the stage of cross-examination of the witness of the plaintiff, for sending the document to an expert, the Court below dismissed the application on the ground of delay and it is for the plaintiff to prove that the document is genuine. In such circumstances, such order needs no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. This Court had given anxious consideration to the respective stands taken by the parties and also the reasons recorded by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam while dismissing the applications without costs. The suit is based on the strength of a promissory note. It is no doubt true that the revision petitioner as defendant had taken a specific stand disputing the very execution of the said promissory note. It is also not in controversy that I.A.No. 76/2006 wherein the relief prayed for was to send the suit document to the expert examination had been allowed but it is stated that to comply with the request made by the Expert and to produce further material or to obtain the signatures, an attempt had been made and due to non-cooperation on the part of the revision petitioner, the same could not be carried out to its logical end. No doubt, Sri Purushotham, the learned Counsel representing revision petitioner would emphasize that no such opportunity had been given and also made certain further submissions to the effect that the Staff of the Court in fact had played fraud in preventing the party in having such an opportunity. On a careful analysis of the respective stands taken by the parties and also the reasons recorded in the Orders impugned in these Civil Revision Petitions, both in I.A.No. 199/2007 and I.A.No. 200/2007 in O.S.No. 190/2004 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, this Court is unable to spell out such submissions or contentions and may be the learned Counsel is making such submissions at the stage of Civil Revision Petitions. Hence, this Court is not inclined to give serious thought to such submissions at the stage of Civil Revision Petitions. 10. Hence, this Court is not inclined to give serious thought to such submissions at the stage of Civil Revision Petitions. 10. In the light of the reasons recorded by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, this Court is satisfied that the learned Judge exercised the discretion property in the facts and circumstances of c the case. Hence, these impugned orders do c not suffer from any illegality. Accordingly, II these Civil Revision Petitions being devoid v of merit, shall stand dismissed. No order as r to costs.