Judgment :- 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed as against the order dated 21.11.2011 passed in I.A. No.523 of 2011 in O.S. No.49 of 2011 on the file of the Principal District Court, Namakkal. 2. The above said Suit was filed by the Petitioner herein with the following prayer: i. to pass a preliminary decree against the mortgage properties, now, in the hands of L.R’s of deceased K. Velappa Gounder namely Defendants 1 to 3, directing the Defendants 1 to 3 to pay a sum of Rs.19,09,205.00 with further and future interest for the principal amount of Rs.5,00,000/- at rate of 24% from the date of filing of this Suit till recovery in full and cost of the Suit; ii. to direct the Defendants to pay the amount mentioned from the “B” schedule properties in the hands of Defendants within a date fixed y the Hon’ble Court; and iii. in default of payment to direct the sale of mortgage properties described in Schedule B of this Plaint in the hands of Defendants 1 to 3 and apply the sale proceeds to the amount due to the Plaintiff’s Finance Company towards the Suit claim. 3. In the said Suit, the Petitioner had filed I.A.No.523 of 2011 seeking to send certain receipts for expert opinion. The Trial Court, by order dated 21-11-2011, has allowed the said Interlocutory Application. 4. The grievance of the Petitioner with regard to the above said order passed by the Trial Court is that as per the said order, the documents which the Petitioner wants to send for expert opinion, have been directed to be sent to the Government Expert Organisation, but, as per the Affidavit filed in support of the Interlocutory Application, the Petitioner had sought a prayer to send those documents to one T.V. Jayadevi, Handwriting Expert, Forensic Lab, Rajaji Nagar, Bangalore-10. 5. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, when as per the prayer sought in the said Interlocutory Application, those documents have to be sent to a particular Private Handwriting Expert, sending the same to the Government Expert Organisation is prima facie illegal and hence, on this ground, this Civil Revision Petition is filed. 6. 5. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, when as per the prayer sought in the said Interlocutory Application, those documents have to be sent to a particular Private Handwriting Expert, sending the same to the Government Expert Organisation is prima facie illegal and hence, on this ground, this Civil Revision Petition is filed. 6. Relying on the judgment in R. Elango v. K. Dhanasekaran and others, 2008 (8) MLJ 299, the stand of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the choice of sending a particular document to a particular expert in with the person who files that Petition and according to him, even as per Section 45 of the Evidence Act also, no difference or distinction between a Government Organisation and Private Expert bodies has been made; as such, as per the above said judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court and also as per Section 45 of the Evidence Act, for seeking expert opinion, the documents have to be sent only to T.V. Jayadevi, Handwriting Expert, Forensic Lab, Rajaji Nagar, Bangalore-10, to whom the Petitioner wants the documents to be sent. Besides, according to him, no prejudice will also be caused if the documents are sent to the private agency and in number of cases, only the private agencies are giving expert opinion. 7. According to the learned Counsel, the Trial Court has rejected the Interlocutory Application on the ground that if the documents are sent to a private individual, evidence will be created; but, the said reasoning of the Trial Court is prima facie illegal. Based on these submissions, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has sought setting aside of the order dated 21.11.2011 passed by the Trial Court in I.A. NO.523 of 2011 in O.S. NO.49 of 2011. 8. This, Court is not inclined to accept any of the arguments of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Based on these submissions, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has sought setting aside of the order dated 21.11.2011 passed by the Trial Court in I.A. NO.523 of 2011 in O.S. NO.49 of 2011. 8. This, Court is not inclined to accept any of the arguments of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Even as per paragraph No.8 of the above said judgment in R. Elango v. K. Dhanasekaran and others, 2008 (8) MLJ 299, relied on by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner to fortify his stand that the said documents have to be sent only to the private agency of the petitioner’s choice and not to the Government Export Organisation the words used therein are as follows: “The party seeking for expert opinion may state his own choice of the expert, be (a) he a Government employed or a private professional. The choice cannot be opposed byt the opposite side.” Even as per the above extracted portion as well, the party concerned may have a choice. But, whether the Court is bound to grant such relief is the question to be decided. There is no whisper even in the judgment relied on by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner to the effect that for the purpose of seeking expert opinion, the Court is bound to send documents to a particular expert of the Petitioner’s choice. As per the wordings used in the said paragraph, the Petitioner is having an option to specify the name of any agency of his choice to whom he would like the documents to be sent for expert opinion, i.e., to a Government Organisation or a Private Agency and the opposite party cannot oppose the same. But, there is no whisper in the said judgment to the effect that the Court is bound to send documents to a particular agency of the Petitioner’s choice. As such, relying on the above said judgment, the Petitioner cannot get any relief at all. 9. Thus, in view of the above finding, paragraph No.8 of the judgment in Jabalpur Bus Operators’ Association and others v. State of M.P. and another, AIR 2003 MP 81 , and paragraph No.10 of the judgment in State of Bihar v. Ralika Kuer and Kalika Singh and others, AIR 2003 SC 2443 , relied on by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, will not have application to the case in hand. 10. 10. In the case on hand, the Trial Court, with a specific reasoning, has allowed the Interlocutory Application with a direction to send documents to the Government Expert Organisation. The Petitioner may have an option to specify the name of an expert to whom he would like the documents to be sent for expert opinion. But, on the aspect as to whether he can compel the Court to send the document only to the particular expert, no statutory provision or no ruling to this effect has been brought to the notice of the Court. Further, the very endeavour of the Petitioner in insisting upon the Court to send the documents to a particular expert itself creates a doubt in the mind of the Court of course, as per the judgment in R. Elango v. K. Dhanasekaran and others, 2008 (8) MLJ 299, relied on by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Petitioner has the option of specifying the name of an expert to whom he would like the documents to be sent for expert opinion. But, based on so many factors, the Court has got the power to decide as to whether to send the documents to the Government Expert Organisation or to the private agency of the Petitioner’s choice, seeking option. Besides, with regard to the question as to whether this power of the Court can be curtailed and it is purely the discretion of the Court. As such, in the case in hand, the Trial Court, based on a particular reason, has taken a view that the documents have to be sent to the Government Expert Organisation over which, in the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner cannot have any grievance at all. Besides, what is required by the Petitioner is only an expert opinion and the Petitioner cannot have any grievance at all as to from whom such expert opinion is sought, i.e., from the Government Expert Organisation or the Private Agency of his choice. 11. Under such circumstances, this Court finds no infirmity in the order dated 21.11.2011 passed by the Trial Court,. However, while sending the documents to the Government Export Organisation, the Trial Court in directed to follow the practice adopted in this regard. With the above direction, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.