HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5865 of 2010 Date: June 30, 2011 Between: Ch. Kamsamma … Petitioner And 1. G. Komuramma & another … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5865 of 2010 O R D E R: The plaintiff in O.S. No.112 of 2005 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Narsapur, is before this Court aggrieved by the order dated 23.11.2010 passed by the said Court dismissing I.A. No.162 of 2010 in O.S. No.112 of 2005. The said application was filed by the plaintiff seeking a direction to the second defendant in the suit to submit his admitted signatures in the form of passbooks/title deeds/bank agreements etc., dating back to the year 2002 for examination by the Andhra Pradesh Forensic Science Laboratories, Hyderabad. 2. Earlier, by its order in I.A. No.221 of 2009 filed in the suit, the trial court directed the examination of the signatures of the second defendant in the vakalat and written statement filed in the suit with that in the agreement of sale (Ex.A-4) of the plaintiff, wherein he is said to have affixed his signature as an attesting witness. However, when the documents were sent to the Andhra Pradesh Forensic Science Laboratories, Hyderabad, the Director thereof, by communication dated 15.5.2010 addressed to the trial Court, asked for extensive admitted signatures of the second defendant written in the normal course of the business around the year 2002 for the purpose of comparison. Owing to this communication from the Director, Andhra Pradesh Forensic Science Laboratories, Hyderabad, the plaintiff filed the subject I.A. seeking a direction to the second defendant in the suit to submit his signatures dating back to the year 2002 in passbooks/title deeds/agreements etc., for the purpose of scientific examination. 3. The I.A. was contested by the second defendant in the suit stating that there were no documents executed by him around the year 2002 for the purpose of comparison and that he did not have any passbook/title deeds/bank agreements etc. of that time for sending the same to the Director, Andhra Pradesh Forensic Science Laboratories, Hyderabad. The trial Court, faced with this situation, held that it could not compel the second defendant to produce signatures of the year 2002 when he categorically denied that he was in possession of any such documents pertaining to that year. The trial Court accordingly dismissed the I.A. 4. Pertinent to note, the second defendant is only in his mid-thirties. Normally, signatures of a person of advanced age would be subject to change even over a short period of time. Such discrepancies in signatures are not expected in a person of a younger age even over a lapse of 5 to 10 years. The reason as to why the Director, Andhra Pradesh Forensic Science Laboratories, sought signatures dating back to the year 2002 when asked to compare the admitted signatures of the second defendant in the suit pleadings of 2005 with that in Ex.A- 4 agreement of sale of 2002 is therefore not clear. 5. Be that as it may, once the second defendant claims that there is no document dating back to the year 2002 containing his signature which he can produce as requested by the Director, Andhra Pradesh Forensic Science Laboratories, Hyderabad, it is for the plaintiff to prove the existence of any such document and seek production of the same. If the trial Court is of the opinion that the Forensic Science Laboratories is justified in asking for signatures which are contemporaneous with the execution of Ex.A-4 agreement of sale, it may then compel production of such document. 6. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed along with C.R.P.M.P. No.7802 of 2010. This order shall however not preclude the plaintiff from taking such measures as are considered appropriate for obtaining scientific examination of the signature of the second defendant in Ex.A-4 agreement of sale. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: June 30, 2011. BSB