ORDER 1. The plaintiff is the petitioner in this revision which is directed against the order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram in I.A. No. 1232 of 2002 in O.S. No. 24 of 2006. The said I.A. has been moved by the plaintiff under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act read with Section 15 of C.P.C. for referring the documents Ex.B-2 and B-3 preferably to a government handwriting expert to obtain his opinion as to whether signature appended on both those exhibits are the same as that of the plaintiff, who was examined earlier as P.W.1 in the suit. That Interlocutory Application was dismissed. Hence, this revision. 2. Plaintiff instituted the suit O.S. No. 24 of 2006 seeking decree for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 24.06.2003 and alternatively seeking refund of the advance sale consideration paid in part in a sum of Rs. 50,000/- together with interest at 24% per annum totaling to Rs. 82,666/- as on the date of institution of the suit from the defendant. The suit is instituted on 08.03.2006 and the defendant filed a detailed written statement on 18.07.2006. 3. The defendant has denied execution of the alleged suit agreement of sale dated 24.06.2003. He also denied receipt of the part of the sale consideration amount of Rs. 50,000/- (para 4 of the written statement). In paragraph 5 of the written statement, however, the defendant has admitted that he and his son owned land in Sy. No. 334/11 of Kathipudi Village. He has further admitted that the plaintiff and her husband along with Sri K. Chalapati Rao of Kathipudi approached the defendant and his son for sale of the land situate in Sy.No.334/11 with a view to develop it into a layout and construct an orphanage there, as they have received funds from America. After prolonged discussions, the defendant and his son agreed to sell the land at the rate of Rs. 2,20,000/- per acre and accordingly executed an agreement of sale on 10.06.2003 after receiving an advance amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-. After prolonged discussions, the defendant and his son agreed to sell the land at the rate of Rs. 2,20,000/- per acre and accordingly executed an agreement of sale on 10.06.2003 after receiving an advance amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-. It was further asserted in paragraph 6 of the written statement that immediately the parties have proceeded to the land and got it measured in the presence of the plaintiff, her husband and Sri Chalapati Rao and the total extent of land came to Ac.3.06 cents and the plaintiff and her husband have agreed to purchase the entire extent of the land at the rate of Rs. 2,20,000/- per acre and that they will pay the balance sale consideration amount within fifteen days itself. The written statement in paragraph 6 has set out that when the plaintiff has failed to repay the balance sale consideration amount before 10.07.2003, the date originally agreed upon for payment of the balance sale consideration amount, when contacted, plaintiff has pleaded inability to pay the balance sale consideration amount as sufficient funds have not been received from America. In paragraph 7 of the written statement, the events that took place after the legal notice was received by the defendant on 24.05.2004, sent up by the plaintiff has been adverted to. It was the specific case of the defendant that he and his son have raised a dispute before elders by name Sri Matsa Satyanarayanaa and Sri Thota Apparao and the elders have settled the dispute amicably by directing the defendant and his son to refund the advance amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the plaintiff and that the agreement of sale executed by the defendant on 10.06.2003 with an endorsement of cancellation made thereon shall be returned by the plaintiff. Accordingly, the defendant and his son returned the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- and the plaintiff returned the agreement of sale dated 10.06.2003 with an endorsement dated 05.06.2004 to the effect that she received Rs. 1,00,000/- and the agreement stood cancelled in the presence of the elders. It is also asserted in paragraph 7 of the written statement that on the same date the plaintiff gave another letter to the effect that she is withdrawing the legal notice got issued by her. Hence, the defendant and his son did not send replies to the legal notice sent on behalf of the plaintiff. 4. It is also asserted in paragraph 7 of the written statement that on the same date the plaintiff gave another letter to the effect that she is withdrawing the legal notice got issued by her. Hence, the defendant and his son did not send replies to the legal notice sent on behalf of the plaintiff. 4. The stand adopted by the defendant in the suit is thus clearly brought out to the petitioner herein and hence, from July 2006 onwards, the plaintiff is aware of the line of action adopted by the defendant and consequently she should have chartered the course that is required to be adopted by her. 5. The plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1. She examined Sri K. Chalapati Rao on her behalf as P.W.2. In his chief examination, P.W.2 has made the following statement: In Ex.A-1 and A-4 the defendants as well as attestors have not signed in my presence." 6. In view of this statement with regard to the suit agreement of sale, learned counsel for the plaintiff requested the Court to treat P.W.2 has hostile and permit him to cross-examine, which permission, though opposed by the learned counsel for the defendant, was conceded by the Court. Thereafter, during the course of cross-examination of P.W.2 by the defendant, Ex.B-1 agreement dated 10.06.2003, executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff has been marked. The endorsement of cancellation on Ex.B-2 has been marked as Ex.B-3. P.W.2- K. Chalapati Rao was examined and cross-examined by the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the learned counsel for the defendant on 19.07.2012. Thereafter, DWs 1, 2 and 3 were examined on behalf of the defendants. D.W-1 was examined on 16.08.2012 but his cross-examination was deferred at the request of the learned counsel for the plaintiff till 27.08.2012. He was cross-examined exhaustively on 27.08.2012. D.W-2 was examined and cross-examined on 11.09.2012. D.W.3 is Sri Thota Apparao S/o Sri Subba Rao and he was examined on 26.09.2012. This witness has denied the suggestion that the signatures on Exs. B-2 and B-3 do not belong to the plaintiff. 7. After the evidence in the suit is closed, the plaintiff moved I.A. No. 1232 of 2012 in O.S. No. 24 of 2006 on 26.11.2012 seeking to refer Exs B-2 and B-3 to handwriting expert. The brief affidavit filed in support of the above interlocutory application contains the following statement: "2. B-2 and B-3 do not belong to the plaintiff. 7. After the evidence in the suit is closed, the plaintiff moved I.A. No. 1232 of 2012 in O.S. No. 24 of 2006 on 26.11.2012 seeking to refer Exs B-2 and B-3 to handwriting expert. The brief affidavit filed in support of the above interlocutory application contains the following statement: "2. The defendants during their cross examination of PW-2 introduced Exhibits B-2 and B3 alleging that the same were executed by me, the plaintiff /PW-1, and cross examining me during my evidence suggested to me that the signatures M. VIMALA on Exhibits B-2 and B-3 are made by me and I denied." 8. This application was stoutly opposed by the defendant, by pointing out that the plaintiff is adopting dilatory tactics only to protract the litigation. Further, the plaintiff has not even suggested as to which admitted signatures of her of the contemporary period when Exs.B-2 and B-3 were executed, to be compared with. 9. The Trial Court accepted the view point canvassed by the defendant and dismissed the interlocutory application. Hence this revision. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents in this revision. 11. Section 45 of the Evidence Act sets out that, when the Court has to form any opinion upon a point of foreign law or of science or art, or as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point, of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, or on question as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions are relevant facts and that such persons are called experts. An experts opinion becomes admissible in evidence, as it furnishes the Court with scientific information which is likely to be outside the experience and knowledge of a Judge. Therefore, if, on the proven facts available on record of the case, if a Judge can form his own opinion of such facts and can draw reasonable conclusions based thereon without the help of an expert, then, the opinion of an expert is unnecessary. The fact that an expert witness has impressive qualifications or achievements does not by itself make his own expertise of matters of human nature and behavior, within the limits of normality, any more helpful to a Judge without the facts in controversy are otherwise proved in the matter. The fact that an expert witness has impressive qualifications or achievements does not by itself make his own expertise of matters of human nature and behavior, within the limits of normality, any more helpful to a Judge without the facts in controversy are otherwise proved in the matter. It is, therefore, all the more important to note that the exercise for securing the experts opinion should be permitted, for clearing the doubts, if any, that the evidence leaves behind. It is apt to note that the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court speaking through Justice K.N. Wanchoo (as the learned Chief justice was) in Shashi Kumar Banerjee and others vs. Subodh Kumar Banerjee, since deceased and after him his legal representatives and others has crisply brought out the principle in the following words. 12. Besides it is necessary to observe that expert's evidence as to handwriting is opinion evidence and it can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence. Before acting on such evidence it is useful to see if it is corroborated either by clear direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. In the present case all the probabilities are against the expert's opinion and the direct testimony of the two attesting witnesses which we accept is wholly inconsistent with it. (Emphasis is brought out by me) 13. Again, Justice Dr. A.S. Anand (as the learned Chief Justice then was) speaking for the Court in S. Gopal Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, brought out the principle behind Section 45 of Evidence Act in the following words: The evidence of an expert is a rather weak type of evidence and the courts do not generally consider it as offering conclusive proof and therefore safe to rely upon the same without, seeking independent and reliable corroboration. (Emphasis is mine) 14. In view of the principle thus brought out by the Supreme Court, it is clear that as a matter of a routine course, the Courts should not indulge in seeking an experts opinion and thereafter blindly accept an opinion/report of an expert. (Emphasis is mine) 14. In view of the principle thus brought out by the Supreme Court, it is clear that as a matter of a routine course, the Courts should not indulge in seeking an experts opinion and thereafter blindly accept an opinion/report of an expert. It is the primary duty of the expert to furnish the Judge, the necessary criteria for testing the accuracy of his own observations/inferences/conclusions drawn so that the Judge himself can form his own opinion on the issue after according such weight as the Judge thinks fit to attach with due regard to the other materials available on record. In other words, no Court should surrender mechanically its will or independence or its Judgment to that of an expert. 15. The party, who seeks the assistance of experts opinion evidence, should demonstrate, at the earliest opportune point of the proceedings, as to how a reasonable doubt in forming an opinion or in drawing a reasonable conclusion about the genuineness of the questioned document is persisting and as to how the experts opinion would help the Court to arrive at a just conclusion. Otherwise, recourse to Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act would become a useless tool in the hands of a litigant to protract the proceedings unproductively for a long period. Any such attempt would, far from promoting the cause of justice, defeat it. The affidavit filed by the plaintiff in support of the I.A. in the instant case, did not set out, as to the need for genuinely seeking the expert opinion evidence with regard to Ex.B.2 and B.3. Hence, it is clear that such an attempt has been made routinely. 16. Since, the material on record of this case has adequately been brought by the parties, to enable the Court to form independently an opinion about Ex.B.2 and Ex.B.3, I do not consider that an experts opinion is really required in the matter. The interlocutory application therefore has been rightly considered by the Court below as a dilatory tactics adopted by the plaintiff. 17. Not a single reason has been spelt out by the plaintiff as to why no steps have been taken immediately after examining P.W.2, who was declared as hostile by the plaintiff, to send the documents for an experts opinion. The interlocutory application therefore has been rightly considered by the Court below as a dilatory tactics adopted by the plaintiff. 17. Not a single reason has been spelt out by the plaintiff as to why no steps have been taken immediately after examining P.W.2, who was declared as hostile by the plaintiff, to send the documents for an experts opinion. After the entire evidence is over, and perhaps suspecting that the defendants have made out a strong case, a belated attempt was made for referring the disputed documents to handwriting expert. 18. Therefore, I do not see any justifiable reason for exercising the jurisdiction in this matter, and accordingly both these revisions stand dismissed. No costs. 19. Consequently, miscellaneous applications in these revisions shall also stand dismissed.