IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5073 OF 2008 Between: Katta Jhansi Lakshmi & another ..... Petitioners AND Katta Subrahmanyam & 4 others ..... Respondents The Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5073 OF 2008 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order passed by the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru, in I.A.No.4090 of 2008 in O.S.No.1183 of 2003, dated 12.09.2008. I.A.No.4090 of 2008 is an application filed by the petitioners herein under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, to send the document (Will dated 07.06.1996) for examination by a finger print expert. The petitioners herein are the first and second defendants in the suit. The suit in O.S.No.1183 of 2003 is for partition. The petitioners contended before the Court below that the father-in-law of the first petitioner had executed a Will dated 16.05.1995, and had executed a settlement deed dated 04.06.1996 in their favour. In the plaint filed in the Suit, the respondents- plaintiffs contended that Ex.B1-Will dated 16.05.1995 was fabricated and forged. The Court below observed that, since the respondents-plaintiffs had taken the plea of the document (Settlement Deed dated 04.06.1996) being forged in the plaint itself, the undue delay of around five years in filing the application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to have the said document examined by a finger print expert was only to drag on proceedings; and that the petitioners-defendants had not explained why they had kept quiet for so long without filing an application. The Court below saw no reason to entertain the application. Before this Court, Sri K. Chidambaram, learned counsel for the petitioners, would contend that, while there may well have been some delay on the part of the petitioners in making the application, that by itself should not disentitle them from having the said document examined by a finger print expert since the entire case revolves around the genuineness or otherwise of the settlement deed dated 04.06.1996. An application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, requesting that a document be sent for examination by a hand writing expert, does not require the document being referred for such examination in each and every case where such a request is made. These are all matters which are in the discretion of the Court below. In the case on hand, the Court below has refused to exercise its discretion to send the document for examination by a hand writing expert. On account of the delay of five years in making such an application, the Court below was of the view that the application was only filed to drag on proceedings in the Suit which relates to the year 2003. This Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, does not sit in appeal as a court of appeal would. The order of the Court below does not suffer from perversity or patent illegality necessitating interference in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Civil Revision Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. ______________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Date: 23rd September, 2010. KL HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5073 OF 2008 23rd September, 2010. KL