THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4034 OF 2011 Dated 9-12-2011 Between: Pilla Krishna Rao. ..Petitioner. And: Girada Tata Rao. …Respondent. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4034 OF 2011 ORDER: No representation for the respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the alleged document which is said to have been executed by the petitioner i.e., pronote dated 17-11-2002 is a rank forgery and that in spite of filing an application to send document to handwriting expert, the trial Court in I.A.No.117 of 2008 in O.S.No.119 of 2004 dismissed the said petition. It is also his submission that the findings of the tribunal are contrary to the record. It is also his submission that when the petitioner filed an application before the appellate Court in I.A.No.14 of 2011, the appellate Court dismissed the application without considering his pleas. As held by this Court in case reported in KORIVI CHINNA POLI REDDY AND ANOTHER v. DADIBOINA GURAIAH ([1]), there is no bar to entertain an application at a belated stage to receive the additional evidence. Of course, the signature of any person may change from time to time and therefore, it is always better if the signature of the same period in which the disputed signature was singed, is sent to the hand writing expert. It will be better to summon the documents containing the admitted or specimen signatures for comparison available in any government record or in any nationalized Bank and to send them and the disputed signature to the handwriting expert for comparison. When a party alleges that his signature has been forged, though the Court is empowered to compare the signatures under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is always better if an opportunity is given to the parties, to have the opinion of an expert in this regard. Of course, the parties should also be diligent and should take steps as early as possible preferably before the commencement of trial or at least immediately at the initial stage of the trial, to file an application in this regard and the Court should consider the same having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. However, it is always better to give a reasonable opportunity to the parties to put forth their case and adduce the necessary evidence which includes taking opinion of an expert on the disputed signature. It is a known fact that once trial is concluded and judgment is pronounced by the trial Court for all practicable purposes, it will be difficult for the parties to adduce evidence at the appellate stage or at a subsequent stage. Due to the passage of time, documents may not be available and even the witnesses also may not be available after a decade or more than a decade. Therefore, it is always desirable if the trial Court gives all opportunities to the parties to adduce the evidence, they intend to place before the Court. Subject to the observations made supra, impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the appellate Court. The appellate Court may give an opportunity to the petitioner to give the particulars of his signature available in any Government Office or in any nationalized Bank etc., in the year 2002 to enable the Appellate Court to pass appropriate orders. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. ___________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 09-12-2011. Dvs THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4034 OF 2011 Dated 9-12-2011 [1] 2010 (5) ALD 288