IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FIFTH (5TH) DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition Nos.2725 & 2728 of 2010 Between: Smt. G Jhansi Laxmi … Petitioner And: S Sailoo & 4 others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition Nos.2725 & 2728 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: CRP No.2725 of 2010 is directed against the order dated 21.04.2010 in IA No.133 of 2010 and CRP No.2728 of 2010 is directed against the order in IA No.132 of 2010, both in OS No.373 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy district, wherein the said applications filed by the petitioner herein under Section 45 of the Evidence Act for sending Exs.B.7 and B.8 to the Hand-writing expert for comparison and opinion and for recall of DW.1 for further cross examination, respectively, were dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. As the two revision petitions arise out of the same suit, between the same parties, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The petitioner herein filed suit against the respondent for cancellation of the sale deed dated 16.06.2005. The respondent filed written statement, contesting the suit. Necessary issues were settled and the trial of the suit has commenced and PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were marked on behalf of the plaintiff. DWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.11 were marked on behalf of the defendant. When the matter stood posted for hearing arguments, the plaintiff filed the present applications for the above reliefs. The defendant filed Ex.B.7 certified copy of confirmation of sale deed dated 30.09.1980 and Ex.B.8 certified copy of receipt dated 10.07.1967. According to the plaintiff, the said documents are forged and fabricated. In order to substantiate her contention the plaintiff made a request to send the documents to the handwriting expert for comparison and opinion. The respondent filed counter, opposing the claim and contending that the plaintiff has not raised any such plea in her plaint alleging that Exs.B.7 and B.8 are forged documents and no suggestion was also made in the cross- examination of DW.1 or DW.2 to that effect, though in the written statement field on 25.07.2006, the defendants have categorically referred to the said documents. 4. In the affidavit filed in support of the application IA No.132 of 2010 filed under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC for recall of DW.1, the petitioner pleaded that at the time of examination of DW.1, no documents were filed and it was only 3rd defendant, who filed certain documents along with the chief affidavit and therefore, an opportunity may be given to the plaintiff to recall DW.1 for further cross-examination of DW.1 pertaining to the documents, which were subsequently filed by the defendants. 5. The respondent/defendant filed a counter, opposing the said application, contending that DWs.1 and 2 were cross-examined at length and there are no valid reasons for recall of DW.1 at the stage of arguments. 6. By impugned orders, the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed both the applications. Hence, the present revision petitions by the plaintiff. In the written statement filed by 3rd defendant, it was averred that the plaintiff sold Plot No.90 to V.Ramchander for a consideration by way of sale deed dated 30.09.1980 and delivered possession to the said Ramchander, who became absolute owner and later he sold the same to first defendant under sale deed dated 26.02.1995 and first defendant in turn sold to V.Sanjeevareddy-2nd defendant under registered sale deed dated 16.06.2005 and delivered possession and 2nd defendant in turn alienated the same to 4th defendant under sale deed dated 30.11.2005. The 3rd defendant therefore contended that the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit plot, subsequent to 1980. The said written statement was filed by 3rd defendant on 25.07.2006. Thus the plaintiff was aware of the said plea pertaining to execution of Ex.B.7 even by 2006 when the 3rd defendant filed written statement. Ex.B.8 receipt is said to have preceded the transaction under Ex.B.7. The plaintiff did not however file any rejoinder, denying the execution of the said documents. 7. As seen from the impugned orders, the plaintiff has not even suggested to DWs.1 and 2 in the cross-examination that Exs.B.7 and B.8 are forged and fabricated documents. There is absolutely no reason furnished by the plaintiff for not filing the application earlier even though the written statement of 3rd defendant was filed in July 2006. It is obvious that the present application in IA No.133 of 2010 is filed at a belated stage when the matter stood posted for arguments, only with a view to protract the proceedings. The plaintiff has not laid down any basis justifying the need to send the documents Exs.B.7 and B.8 to the handwriting expert. The application is highly belated and lacks bona fide. The discretion exercised by the trial court in refusing to send the documents Exs.B.7 and B.8 to the handwriting expert at this belated stage, does not call for any interference. 8. Insofar as the CRP No.2728 of 2010 is concerned, the reliefs sought for therein is only recall of DW.1 for further cross- examination to confront him with the documents filed subsequent to closure of his evidence. As seen from the impugned order, DW.1 was cross-examined at length. The plaintiff ought to have filed application before the closure of the evidence and the matter posted for arguments. However, with a view to give opportunity to place on record all relevant information, it is considered that the plaintiff may be permitted to recall DW.1 for further cross-examination pertaining to the documents, which are said to have been marked subsequent to examination of DW.1. The plaintiff shall further cross-examine DW.1 on a date fixed by the trial court and in the event of failure to avail opportunity, his right to recall DW.1 for further cross- examination would stand forfeited. 9. In the result, CRP No.2725 of 2010 is dismissed and CRP No.2728 of 2010 is allowed as stated above. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 05.09.2011 bss