THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA C.R.P. NOS.1069 & 1072 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: 1 Since the point involved in these two revision petitions is one and the same these two revision petitions are being disposed of by this common order. 2 These two revisions are directed against the order dated 04.03.2010 passed in CFR No.263 and 264 of 2010 in OP NO.5 of 2006 by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy whereby the court below refused to entertain applications filed by the petitioner for sending certain documents to handwriting expert under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. 3 Brief facts are that the first respondent herein filed the said O.P.5 of 2006 questioning the election of the petitioner herein to the office of the Sarpanch, Pebbair Gram Panchayat in Wanaparthy Division. 4 During the course of trial the petitioner has filed an application requesting the court to send certain documents for comparison of the thumb impressions on the said documents with that of the admitted thumb impressions. That application was allowed and the said documents were sent to the handwriting expert and the person who examined the documents was examined in the said O.P. However, as there was no clarity in the said evidence of the expert, according to the petitioner, he again filed the present CFR Nos. 263 and 264 of 2010 requesting the court to send the said documents to another handwriting expert for second opinion. The court blow adjourned the matter from 18.02.2010 to 25.02.2010 stating that the petitioner is at liberty to file applications for sending the documents for comparison of thumb impressions/ signatures by another expert. However, as no applications have been filed, the court below passed the said order and consequently refused to entertain the CFR Nos.263 and 264 of 2010. Questioning the said order, the petitioner approached this court and filed the present applications. 5 It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that because of the strike observed by the advocates the petitioner nor her advocate were present in the court and submit the documents for the purpose of sending the same to the second expert. 6 However, the learned counsel for the respondent, who entered caveat, opposed the same stating that the election took place in the year 2006 and the OP was filed immediately thereafter, the entire evidence was closed on 13.08.2009 and the said OP itself was posted for arguments on 27.08.2009 and at that juncture the petitioner herein filed an application requesting the court to send the said documents to an expert and accordingly that petition was allowed and the documents were sent to expert and when the expert gave an opinion he was examined in the court on 18.02.2010 and again the petitioner, with an intention to drag on the proceedings requested the court to send the documents to the second expert and it is nothing but delaying the proceedings on some pretext or the other. 7 Apparently, the court below has not examined the said applications filed by the petitioner and decided as to whether the said documents are required to be sent to another expert or not. What happened was that on 18.02.2010 the expert was examined and at the instance of the petitioner the matter was adjourned to 25.02.2010 for taking steps to file applications under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for sending the documents to another expert and on 25.02.2010 the petitioner could not file the said applications. The reason assigned by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as the advocates were observing strike on 25.02.2010 the petitioner could not file the applications. The said aspect appears to be true. In fact, the court below has not decided as to whether the said documents are required to be sent to the second expert or not. As the non filing of the said applications under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act on 25.02.2010 is on account of boycott of the courts by the advocates, this court is of the view that the petitioner may be given an opportunity to file the applications. 8 Accordingly both the revisions are allowed, the orders impugned in these revisions dated 04.03.2010 are hereby set aside and the court below is directed to number the said CFR Nos.263 and 264 of 2010, give an opportunity to both parties and decide the same at the earliest possible time, preferably, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. -------------- 10.03.2010 kvsn