AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.V. Maruthi, J.—This revision is filed against the order refusing to send the document to second expert at the instance of the petitioners.
The petitioners filed I.P. No. 13/1996. At the instance of the respondents the document was sent for the opinion of the expert who gave his opinion stating that this document was forged. Now, the petitioners filed the present petition for appointment of second expert for considering the document i.e., Promissory Note for his opinion. The Learned Judge rejected the application on the ground that they have ample opportunity to dislodge the opinion of the expert by examination and that there is no need to send the document for a second expert.
The Learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on a Judgment of Kerala High Court in Koragan v. Koran, 1978 KLT 872. The learned Judge held that the opinion given by the expert is subject to cross-examination and other counter-evidence. The counter-evidence may be the opinion of another expert. With great respect I disagree with the view expressed by the learned Judge that the counter-evidence can be by the opinion of another expert. In my view, if the petitioner is allowed to send the document to another expert and if the opinion of the second expert also goes against the petitioners they may ask for sending the document to third expert and so on and so forth and there will be no end. It is pointed out that the petitioner have ample opportunity to cross-examine the expert and elicit information from him. Therefore, the learned Judge is right in rejecting the application of petitioners.
I do not see any error of jurisdiction in the order passed by the learned Judge. Hence, the revision is dismissed.