THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA C.R.P.No.1907 & 3183 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: 1. Since the subject matter of these two revisions is interrelated, these two revisions are disposed of by this common order. 2. For the sake of convenience I refer to the parties as they are arrayed in CRP No.1907 of 2010. 3. The first respondent herein was the successful candidate in the elections held to the post of Sarpanch, Pebbair Gram Panchayat in 2006. Challenging her election the petitioner filed Election OP No.5 of 2006 before the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy, Mahaboobnagar District on the ground that the first respondent gave birth to third child after the cut of date and as such she is disqualified to contest for the post of Sarpanch and her election has to be set aside. After completion of evidence on both sides, the first respondent filed an application to send a document i.e. Ex.C.10 which contains the disputed thumb impression of the first respondent to the handwriting expert for comparison with her admitted signatures obtained in open court. The Court below, after contest by the petitioner, allowed the said application and accordingly the document i.e. Ex.C.10 was sent to the expert for opinion and report. The expert after examining the disputed signatures gave opinion stating that the disputed thumb impression and the said admitted thumb impressions are identical. Subsequent to that the expert was examined as P.W.3 in the said case. However, during the course of cross-examination P.W.3 i.e. the expert stated that there is clear dissimilarity in the admitted and specimen signatures and he also admitted that even one dissimilarity is sufficient to hold that they are not identical. In spite of the same he ventured to say that the admitted and disputed thumb impressions are identical. Disputing the said evidence given by the expert, the first respondent again filed another application i.e. I.A.No.123 of 2010 contending that the expert did not follow the procedure prescribed under law while comparing the disputed signatures with the admitted signatures. However, the Court below rejected the said application on the ground that the same was filed beyond the period of limitation. Questioning the said order of rejection, the first respondent filed CRP Nos.1069 & 1072 of 2010 before this court and this court vide order dated 10.03.2010 directed the court below to dispose of the said I.A.No.123 of 2010. The court below by its order dated 01.04.2010 allowed the said I.A. and directed the said document i.e. Ex.C.10 to be sent to the second expert for opinion and report by duly following the decision delivered by a Division Bench of this court in M.Ramesh Babu Vs. M. Sridhar[1]. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed the CRP No.1907 of 2010 and this court by order dated 30.04.2010 suspended the said order passed by the trial court. Subsequently, the petitioner approached the trial court and filed an application i.e. I.A.No.217 of 2010 stating that as the order dated 01.04.2010 made in I.A.No.123 of 2010 alone was suspended by this Court and as there is no stay of all further proceedings, the trial court can take up the main Election OP for arguments. The trial court, agreeing with the said contention allowed the said application, after contest by the first respondent, by its order dated 19.07.2010 holding that once the order passed by the said trial court in I.A.No.123 of 2010 is only suspended and there is no stay of further proceedings in the O.P., there is no procedural hurdle to adjourn the main OP itself for arguments. Questioning the same, the first respondent filed CRP No.3183 of 2010. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial court was in error in allowing the I.A.No.123 of 2010 when the matter was ripe for arguments and further contended that the trial court ought not to have directed the disputed document to be sent to the second expert for opinion when a categorical opinion of the first expert is available on record and also in view of the fact that the OP is of the year 2006 and within a span of one year approximately the term of office of the first respondent is coming to an end. He further contended that when the said order dated 01.04.2010 passed by the trial court has been suspended by this court, there is no irregularity in proceeding to the next step i.e. arguments since the evidence on both sides was over. He further contended that the report of the expert is not conclusive proof and that the court may accept it or reject it on merits and as such there is no necessity to send the document to second expert. 6. On the other hand the learned counsel for the first respondent contended that the court below is perfectly justified in allowing the I.A.No.123 of 2010 because there are so many material irregularities and discrepancies in the evidence of P.W.3 i.e. expert who gave divergent opinions in his evidence with the regard to the thumb impressions. He further contended that may be the order dated 1.4.2010 made in I.A.No.123 of 2010 alone was suspended and there is no stay of all further proceedings, but if the Court proceeds further with the main Election O.P. and decides the matter, the very order passed on 1.4.2010 in I.A.No.123 of 2010 becomes infructuous and in fact, the decision in the main Election O.P. is substantially dependent on the opinion to be given by the expert. 7. Having regard to the rival contentions and arguments made on both sides, this court looked into the record. It is to be seen that during the course of cross-examination of P.W.3 i.e. the handwriting expert he did not mention in his report, which thumb impression he examined and relied upon, but in his evidence he stated that he gave opinion with regard to left thumb impression. So questioning those material irregularities, the first respondent filed the I.A.No.123 of 2010. In the order dated 01.04.2010 made in I.A.No.123 of 2010 the court below followed the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this court in M. Ramesh Babu case (1 supra) wherein it is held that it is the duty of the court to ascertain the fact and the goal of the court should be to find out the truth and further held that there is no bar to take the opinion of second expert without setting aside the earlier report. 8. No doubt, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the report of the expert is not conclusive proof and the court may accept it or reject it on merits and as such there is no necessity to send the document to second expert. But, in the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am also of the opinion that when the evidence of the expert is not in consonance with his own opinion given in the report and when there are so many material improbabilities pointed out, the court below is justified in directing the document to be sent to the second expert. So the contention of the petitioner on that aspect is liable to be rejected in view of the divergent opinions given by the expert himself. 9. Coming to the next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that as this Court has suspended the order dated 01.04.2010 made in I.A.No.123 of 2010, the court below is justified in taking up the main OP No.5 of 2006 for arguments is concerned, this Court cannot accept the same. Of course, the said contention may be technically correct, but if the arguments are heard and the main O.P. itself is decided on merits, the very purpose of sending the document to the second expert for his opinion becomes infructuous. After receipt of the report of the second expert and if required after perusing the said document, the Court below has to decide the main O.P. and definitely the final result in the O.P. is substantially dependent on the opinion to be given by the second expert. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the fact that the present OP is of the year 2006, both the revisions are disposed of with a direction to the court below to send the disputed document to the second expert for opinion and report and dispose of the OP No.5 of 2010 immediately after receipt of the opinion. The whole exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. _____________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 20th October, 2010 Kvsn/Gsn. [1] 2009 (4) ALT 780 (DB)