THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS.5749 OF 2009. DATED:09-03-2010. Between: Abdullah Bin Awaz … Petitioner and Abdul Rahman and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS.5749 OF 2009. ORDER: This revision is filed challenging the order, dated 28-08-2009, in I. A. No. 990 of 2009 in A.S.No.12 of 1994, on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, wherein the application filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to send the documents to the expert for comparison and opinion, was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that contemporary documents are not available and therefore, for the purpose of comparing with the disputed signatures, the admitted signatures have to be sent to the expert. He further contended that the admitted signatures of the 1st defendant were not available and hence, he filed the application, that even the opinion of the expert cannot be said to be correct opinion in view of the fact that he has not compared the disputed signatures with that of the available signatures as the admitted signatures were not available when he compared the document. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that there are no admitted signatures available for the purpose of comparison with the disputed signatures, that there is no error of law apparent on the face of record and hence, he prays to dismiss the revision. 3. As seen from the record, no doubt, the expert addressed a letter to the District Judge to send the admitted signatures of the persons concerned for the purpose of comparison with that of the disputed signatures. It seems that admitted signatures have not been sent. But, however, the expert has given a opinion basing on the available signatures. Now the present application is filed to send the so called admitted signatures for the purpose of comparison. The counsel for the respondents seriously opposed the same on the ground that there are no admitted signatures of the 1st defendant so as to compare with the disputed signatures on the documents. He relied on a decision reported in BHERI NAGESWARA RAO V MAVURI VEERABHADRA AND OTHRS [1], wherein it was held thus: “Section 45 of the Act enables the court to obtain the opinion of an expert on various aspects, including the one relating to the comparison of disputed signatures. An expert would be in a position to render his opinion, only when the original of the document containing the disputed signature is forwarded to him. Further, there can be effective comparison and verification of the signatures, if only another document containing the undisputed signatures of the contemporary period are made available to the expert. In the instant case, respondents 1 to 3 filed Exs. B. 13 and B. 15, which are, admittedly, the Xerox copies of general power of attorney, dated 21-12-1988 and khararnama, dated 21-12-1988. It is rather incomprehensible that an expert would be able to undertake analysis of the imprint of a signature, on a Xerox copy.” In view of the above decision, the disputed signatures can possibly be compared with the admitted signatures of the parties available on record by the expert. When such admitted signatures were not available, it may not be possible to compare the same with the disputed signatures. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the order under challenge. 4. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. --------------------- K.C.BHANU, J DATED:09-03-2010 Hsd [1] AIR 2006 AP 314