THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.R.P.No.2823 of 2008 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order, dated 23.11.2007 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Anakapalle in I.A.No.167 of 2006 in O.S.No.48 of 1995 filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short ‘the Act’) and Sections 99 and 100 CPC to send Exs.A2, A3, A5, A6, vakalat and written statement, which contain the thumb impressions and signatures of the defendant to the expert for examination and opinion. 2. The respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.No.48 of 1995 seeking a direction to the defendant to execute a registered sale deed in terms of the agreement of sale and for specific performance of contract after receiving the balance of sale consideration. When the matter is reserved for judgment, the respondent filed the above said I.A. and the same was allowed holding that opportunity should be given to the respondent to get the documents examined by an expert as it would substantiate the contentions of either parties. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/defendant filed this revision petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as the respondent earlier filed I.A.No.145 of 2005 seeking to reopen the matter for examination of the additional evidence dismissed and confirmed by this Court vide order dated 14.06.2006 in CRP No.4269 of 2005, this petition is barred by the principle of res judicata. He further contended that the trial Court ought to have allowed the application when the suit is reserved for judgment. 4 . On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently contended that the principle of res judicata is not applicable to this case since in I.A.No.145 of 2005 and CRP No.4269 of 2005, the issue of sending the documents to the expert was not considered, but nonetheless, under Section 45 of the Act, whenever the Court has to form an opinion upon the question of forgery of the documents, the opinion of expert is relevant and that the trial Court has rightly passed the order impugned, which needs no interference by this Court. 5. Section 45 of the Act reads as under: “When the Court has to form an 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 in questions as to identity of handwriting or finger-impressions are relevant facts. Such persons are called experts. 6. From a perusal of the material on record, it is evident that the petitioner/defendant in his written statement denied the signatures and thumb impressions on Ex.A2-agreement, Ex.A3- receipt, Ex.A5-letter addressed by him and Ex.A6- reply notice, stating that they are all forged. Whenever the defendant denied his thumb impressions and the execution of the agreement of sale and the Court has come to an opinion upon the forgery, the opinion of expert is relevant under Section 45 of the Act. Further, the principle of res judicata is not applicable to the facts of this case, as rightly observed by the trial Court, since in the earlier petitions filed by the respondent, the issue of sending the documents to expert was not considered and the same were dismissed only on the point of examination of a witness. The trial Court has rightly passed the order impugned and I find no illegality or irregularity in it warranting interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, since the suit is of the year 1995, the trial Court is directed to take necessary steps for getting opinion of the expert on the documents in question and dispose of the matter, expeditiously. No order as to costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:11.02.2009 sj