This revision is directed against an order of the Lower Court refusing to send the suit promissory note and the thumb impression of the defendant taken in court to the Finger Print Expert at Vellore. The lower court relied on the decision of this court in T. Narasimha v. Narayana Chettiar and another 1968 2 M.L.J. page 48 for rejecting the petitioner's application for sending the suit promissory note to the Finger Print Expert. In that case, Ramamarthi J. has expressed that the practice of sending original documents in the custody of the court to the hand writing expert is highly objectionable and a very bad practice and that under no circumstances, should a court permit or allow the documents to go out of its custody as such an civil practice is attendant with various risks. The learned Judge points out the proper procedure in such cases to be only to allow the hand writing expert to inspect the document in the court premises itself in the presence of some responsible court official and also, if necessary, to permit the expert to have photographic copies of the same, for the purpose of his examination. This decision was referred to by Kallasam J. In C.R.P. 487 of 1969. In that case, the promissory note was contended to be a forged one and for examination of the stamp in the promissory note a request was made to the trial Court for sending the promissory note to the Master, India Security Press, Nasik, for finding out whether the stamps are genuine and proper. On the facts of that case, the learned Judge distinguished the case in T.A. Narasimha v. Narayana Chettiar I.L.R. 1968 Mad. page 805 without any dissent with the view expressed by Ramamurthy J. After hearing the counsel on either side, I also feel that the procedure to be adopted in cases as there is the one as suggested by Ramamurthy J. With due respect, I am in entire agreement with the view expressed by Remamarthy J. in that case. If the petitioner wants to have the document examined by a Finger Print Expert, it is open to him to have the Finger Print Expert examine the document in court and to have photographic copies of the same for the purposes of his investigation. The order of the lower court in the circumstances is quite valid and does not call for an interference from this court The petition is dismissed, but under the circumstances no costs.