*HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY +C.R.P.No.779 of 2011 % 12-8-2011 # Gotla Ratan Raj .. Petitioner And $ Gotla Yashwanth Raj and others .. Respondents <GIST: >HEAD NOTE: ! Counsel for petitioner : Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao ^ Counsel for respondent No.1 : Sri Ramachandra Rao Venuganti Counsel for respondent No.2 : Sri Venkat Ram Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.3 & 4 : -- CASES REFERRED : Nil HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY C.R.P.No.779 of 2011 Date : 12-8-2011 Between : Gotla Ratan Raj .. Petitioner And Gotla Yashwanth Raj and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao Counsel for respondent No.1 : Sri Ramachandra Rao Venuganti Counsel for respondent No.2 : Sri Venkat Ram Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.3 & 4 : -- The court made the following: ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 28-1-2011 in I.A.No.972/2010 in O.S.No.38/2007 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda. The petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit. He has filed the suit for a declaration that the Will propounded by respondent No.1/defendant No.1 allegedly executed by their mother was forged one and to invalidate the said Will. The petitioner also sought for recovery of possession of the suit house from respondent No.2/defendant No.4. The petitioner filed I.A.No.98/2011 for production of gift settlement deed by defendant No.3 and to send the same for expert’s opinion for comparing the signature thereon with the purported signature of their mother contained in the Will propounded by respondent No.1/defendant No.1. The said I.A. was allowed and the documents were sent for the expert’s opinion. After receiving the expert’s opinion, respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein have filed I.A.No.972/2010 to summon acquittance and the attendance registers for the years 1995-96 and 1996-97 from the Zilla Parishath High School, Padamatpally, for enabling them to send the same for second opinion of the expert. This application was resisted by the petitioner by filing a counter-affidavit. However, the court below has allowed the said application. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner questioning the said order. I have heard Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ramachandra Rao Venuganti, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri M.Venkata Ram Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 not being necessary parties, the petitioner has given them up. A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.972/2010 shows that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not given reasons worth the name for summoning fresh set of documents from the school and sending the same for “second opinion of the expert”. Under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the court can obtain the opinion of an expert if it is to form an opinion, inter alia, as to the identity of handwriting or finger impressions. Such an opinion obtained by the court is only persuasive in nature but the final decision lies with the court in determining whether the handwriting/signature or the finger impressions, on the disputed document are genuine or forged. When the petitioner has summoned the gift settlement deed in the custody of respondent No.3/defendant No.3 for comparison with the signatures on the purported Will, neither of respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared to have raised any plea that the signature on the said gift settlement deed does not belong to the testator of the alleged Will. Even in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.972/2010, there is no whisper on this aspect. Therefore, I am at a loss to understand as to how respondent Nos.1 and 2 could initiate a fresh process of sending another set of documents for comparison by the expert. Even though there may not be any prohibition in law for sending such second set of documents for the opinion of the expert, the person who makes such an application has to give proper and cogent reasons to satisfy the court that sending such second set of documents for the expert’s opinion is necessary on the facts of the case. The court below has committed a serious error in holding that sending the second set of papers for comparison will not prejudice the interests of the petitioner. It is a well-known fact that suits are prolonged by parties on one pretext or the other. In order to cut-down on the avoidable delays, the courts shall always be discrete in examining the petitions of this nature before granting reliefs. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 failed to make out any case whatsoever by assigning any reason as to the need for sending the second set of documents to the expert for his opinion. Neither have they stated that the signatures on the gift settlement deed are not that of the testator of the alleged Will nor that the earlier opinion of the expert is wrong. A party cannot be permitted to seek sending documents for a second opinion just because the opinion is against it. Such a course, if permitted, not only leads to delay in disposal of the cases but also constitutes abuse of process of law and courts. I am therefore of the opinion that the application filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 is vexatious in nature and such an application ought not to have been allowed by the court below. For the above mentioned reasons, the order under Revision is set-aside and the Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. As a sequel, interim order dated 21-4-2011 is vacated and CRPMP No.1116/2011 is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 12-8-2011 AM