HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3282 & 3283 of 2010 Date : 09.09.2010 Between : Arur David. …..Petitioner And Kaveti Babu Rao. …..Respondent HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3282 & 3283 of 2010 COMMON ORDER : As these two revisions are filed against two interlocutory orders in the suit in O.S.No.1842 of 2006, pending on the file of the V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. C.R.P.No.3283 of 2010 is filed, aggrieved by the order, dated 07.06.2010, passed in I.A.No.235 of 2010, whereas, C.R.P.No.3282 of 2010 is filed, aggrieved by the order, dated 07.06.2010, passed in I.A.No.236 of 2010. The petitioner herein is the defendant in the suit in O.S.No.1842 of 2006, pending on the file of the V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. The aforesaid suit is filed in 2006, by the respondent-plaintiff, for recovery of money, based on a promissory note, which is alleged to have been executed by the petitioner herein and is marked as Ex.A-1. In the aforesaid suit, written statement was filed on 01.03.2007 by the petitioner herein, denying the execution of such promissory note, and accordingly, issues were framed on 18.06.2007. On behalf of the respondent-plaintiff, chief affidavit was filed in lieu of evidence, on 07.11.2007, and the evidence on behalf of plaintiff was closed on 20.11.2009 and the suit was posted to 15.12.2009 for the defendant’s evidence. Thereafter, it was adjourned from time to time on the request of the petitioner herein, on 28.12.2009, 29.12.2009, 21.01.2010, 16.02.2010 and on 26.02.2010. On 26.02.2010, as no evidence was let-in on behalf of petitioner-defendant, his evidence was closed and the matter was posted for arguments on 04.03.2010, 10.03.2010, 12.03.2010 and 22.03.2010. When the matter was posted finally for arguments on 23.03.2010, the petitioner has filed two applications in I.A.Nos.235 of 2010 and 236 of 2010. I.A.No.235 of 2010 was filed under Order 8 Rule I(A), to receive certain documents. The list of documents is not furnished along with the affidavit, but a copy of the affidavit filed before the Court below, is filed. The said affidavit is an affidavit, where, blanks were filled in a cyclostyle format, which merely states that the documents, which were not filed earlier, are necessary to prove his case. Absolutely, there are no reasons for not filing such documents along with the written statement. In the petition also, no such list of documents is given, but from a perusal of the order, it appears that the petitioner wanted to file a document namely, the pay-bill register, which contained the signature of the petitioner, so as to seek for comparison and opinion of a handwriting expert. In the said I.A.No.235 of 2010, a detailed counter affidavit is filed by the respondent herein, denying the allegations of the petitioner. It is stated that inspite of taking several adjournments, no evidence was let in by the petitioner, as such, the evidence was closed. It is also stated that there was no reason for not filing the documents earlier and the petitioner has not stated the relevancy of such documents to the suit claim. Further, in the counter affidavit, a categorical averment is made to the effect that the documents, which are sought to be produced, are cooked up only for the purpose of the said application. I.A.No.236 of 2010 was filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, requesting the Court to send Ex.A-1 to an expert for comparing the signature of petitioner on the said pronote with his signature available in the pay-bill register, which document is sought to be filed along with I.A.No.235 of 2010. The Court below, by impugned orders, dated 7th June 2010, rejected both the applications. Whereas I.A.No.235 of 2010 is rejected stating that the petitioner has not shown any relevancy of document sought to be filed, having regard to the suit claim, I.A.No.236 of 2010 is dismissed on the ground that there are no bonafides in the application, and the petitioner cannot seek to refer Ex.A-1 to an expert for comparing his signature with the signature on the document, which is yet to be received. In these revision petitions, it is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that it is always open to the aggrieved person to seek reference for opinion from an expert under Section 45 of the Evidence Act at any time during the pendency of the suit proceedings. It is submitted that as much as the petitioner has already taken his stand in the written statement that the document under Ex.A-1 is not executed by him, in that view of the matter, unless the petitioner is given a chance to send the document for expert opinion to compare the signature on Ex.A-1 with that of his signature in the pay-bill register, sought to be filed along with I.A.No.235 of 2010, he will be put to hardship. In support of his argument, the learned counsel has relied on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Guru Govindu V. Devarapu Venkataramana[1] and also on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Janachaitanya Housing Ltd., Hyderabad V. Divya Financiers, Guntur[2]. In the judgment in Guru Govindu’s case (1 supra), a learned Single Judge of this Court has held that the application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act need not be filed soon after the written statement is filed, in all cases. In the said judgment, it is held that there may be instances where necessity to file such applications would arise after oral evidence of certain witnesses is over. It is further held, in case, the party concerned is able to elicit necessary information or admissions during the course of evidence, the necessity to file an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act may not arise. As such, it is held that nothing prevents the party to file an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, even at the stage of arguments. In the case of Janachaitanya Housing Ltd. (2 supra), a Division Bench of this Court has held that no time limit could be fixed for filing an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act for sending disputed signatures or writings to the hand-writing expert for comparison and opinion, and the same shall be left open to the discretion of the Court, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In these cases, the petitioner is seeking to refer Ex.A-1, which is the promissory note, to compare the signature appearing on it, with that of his signature in the pay-bill register, which is sought to be filed along with I.A.No.235 of 2010. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.235 of 2010, no valid reasons are stated for filing such a petition at the belated stage to receive the document. No reason has been stated, much less, a valid reason, for filing such an application at the belated stage. More over, it cannot be said that the signature in the pay-bill register is an admitted signature, when it is the case of the respondent-plaintiff that the document is cooked up for the purpose of filing an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. In this case, it is to be noticed that except filling up the blanks in the cyclostyled format, no reasons have been stated by the petitioner for seeking leave to file such document at this point of time. In the absence of any reason having been indicated in the affidavit, and in view of the stand taken by the respondent-plaintiff in the counter that the said document is fabricated only for the purpose of filing an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Court below, rejecting the application in I.A.No.235 of 2010. Similarly, even for rejection of I.A.No.236 of 2010, the Court below has given the details of various dates from the date of filing of the suit in 2006. It is evident from the order that although the suit was filed in 2006 and the written statement was filed by the petitioner on 01.03.2007 denying the signature on Ex.A-1, till the matter is finally posted for arguments on 23rd of March 2010, at no point of time, any attempt is made to send the document for opinion of expert. It may be that there is no time limit for filing an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, as rightly held by this Court in the aforesaid judgments, but it is to be seen that whether there are any subsequent events, which necessitated the petitioner to file such application at a belated stage. In the absence of any such eventuality, as rightly held by the Court below, the applications filed by the petitioner lack bonafides, and inspite of giving several opportunities, no steps were taken by the petitioner to lead evidence, and when the matter is posted for arguments, this application is filed, seeking to refer Ex.A-1 promissory note to the expert for opinion by comparing the signature on Ex.A-1 with the signature of petitioner on the document i.e. pay- bill register, which was not allowed to be filed by the Court below. In view of the plea of the respondent-plaintiff that the pay-bill register is cooked up only for the purpose of filing the application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Court below, rejecting the application filed under Section 45 of the Evidence Act also. For the aforesaid reasons, both the revision petitions are devoid of merit, and are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 9th September 2010 ajr [1] AIR 2006 AP 371 [2] 2008(4) ALD 339 (DB)