THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4332 OF 2009 29th December, 2009. BETWEEN: NARRA VENKATARAYUDU AND ANOTHER .. PETITIONERS AND NARRA DEVASAHYA RAO AND OTHERS.. RESPONDENTS THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4332 OF 2009 O R D E R: 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 29-7-2009 passed in I.A.No.462 of 2008 in O.S.No.18 of 2002 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Addanki, D1 and D2 have filed this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Background facts in a nutshell leading to filing of this revision are: R1 herein is the plaintiff and whereas R2 to R10 are D3 to D10 in O.S.No.18 of 2002. The plaintiff filed the suit for partition of the suit schedule property for partition and separate possession of his share in the suit schedule properties. He claimed the properties by virtue of an unregistered WILL dated 4.5.1983 executed by Narra Suraiah. According to him, he and Narra Venkata Saraswathamma are the beneficiaries of the WILL. D1 to D4 took the plea in the suit that Narra Suraiah did not execute the alleged WILL on 4.5.1983. The said Suraiah executed Ex.A5 gift deed on 18.4.1983. According to D1 to D4, Ex.A6 WILL dated 4.5.1983 propounded by the plaintiff is a forged document. The plaintiff reported no objection for sending Exs.A5 and A6 to a handwriting expert, fingerprints bureau, the Government of A.P., Hyderabad and not to any private expert. Accordingly, the said application was allowed and the documents were sent to the office of Government examiner of questioned documents, Directorate of Forensic Science Laboratory. The Government Expert sent his report opining that the signatures contained in Exs.A5 and A6 belong to one and the same person. Thereupon, D1 to D4 filed I.A.No.223 of 2008 seeking a direction to the Government Handwriting Expert to send the photographs of the disputed and admitted signatures and the comparison chart etc. to enable them to get ready with the cross- examination of the concerned expert. The said application came to be allowed and accordingly the concerned expert transmitted the photographs and other material to the Court. 3. D1 to D4 filed I.A.No.462 of 2008 u/s 45 of the Indian Evidence Act r/w 151 CPC and Rule 100 of Civil Rules of Practice to send Ex.A6, an unregistered WILL executed by Narra Suraiah on 4.5.83 to another handwriting expert i.e. Truth Labs, INC 402, Apoorva Towers, Plot No.96, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad for comparison of the alleged signatures of said Narra Suraiah with the admitted signatures of Ex.A5. D1 has sworn to the affidavit in support of the petition. The relevant portion of the affidavit need to be noted and it is thus: “ ….But the opinion given by the expert named above, is not proper and it is not in accordance with the scientific knowledge regarding hanawriting and the expert must have been prompted to give a wrong opinion for other reasons. Hence, I am advised to file this application requesting the Honourable court to send Ex.A6 disputed will for comparison of the signatures of Narra Suraiah contained on Ex.A6 with his admitted signatures contained in Ex.A5 gift deed dated 18.4.1983 executed by the self same Suraiah to another expert i.e. Truth Labs, INC 402, Apoorva Towers, Plot No.96, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, for his opinion. Hence, this application.” 4. The plaintiff filed counter resisting the application. It is stated in the counter that the documents cannot be sent to an expert again and again for opinion that too to a named expert at the whims and fancy of D1 to D4. The learned Senior Civil Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties, proceeded to dismiss the application by an order dated 29-7- 2009. Para 10 of the order needs to be noted and it is thus: “ In our case petitioner examined the expert authority, that he has not suggested any methodology to the expert not brought any incriminating material to draw any inference in expert’s evidence as his opinion wrongly, as such, now he cannot agitate that the expert has not given opinion in a proper way. Thereby, he cannot be entitled to retransmit the Ex.A6 for another expert. The principles laid down in the above said citation is applicable in the case in hand and it supports the contention of the respondent. I too agree with the principles laid down in the above said citation. Considering the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner has not shown any merit to retransmit the Ex.A6 for another expert opinion, as such, this petition is dismissed.” The order passed in I.A.No.462 of 2008 is assailed in this revision. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/ defendants submits that the expert who has been examined as P.W.8 has not compared the signature of Narra Suraiah and instead he compared the disputed signature of Narra Suraiah in part with his admitted signatures and therefore the disputed documents containing the signatures of Narra Suraiah are required to be sent to a private expert for comparison with the admitted signatures and opinion. To buttress his submissions, he refers the cross-examination of P.W.8. Much emphasis has been made on the following part of the evidence of P.W.8, which reads as under: “ I mentioned in my X2 report. I explained about two letters only i.e. “Na” and “Ra”. I have not felt necessary to explain the other vernacular letters Su, Ra, Yaa. There is no specific reason for not explaining the others in detail the rest of the character formations as they are similarly counted for. My warrant does not contain I have to compare only two letters Na and Ra. The examination was done on the analysis of all the alphabetical characters. However the reasons were simplified in explaining the character of Suraiah and hence the situation of a contra opinion may not arise. There is no set parameter that a minimum of specimen signatures are required for comparison.” 7. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/R1 supported the order impugned in the revision. He would contend that once an expert has been examined as a witness, the question of sending the document to another expert does not arise. 8. The only issue that calls for adjudication is – Whether the document can be sent back to another expert for comparison of the disputed signature of Narra Suraiah in toto or to the same expert who has been examined as P.W.8 to compare the signature of Narra Suraiah in toto with the admitted signatures and offer his opinion. 9. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions of the parties. It is not to be forgotten that an expert who submitted his report has been examined as P.W.8. He categorically admits that he compared a part of the disputed signature with the admitted signatures. He also admits that the warrant issued to him does not indicate that he has to compare only a part of the signature of Narra Narsaiah with his admitted signatures. It is also not the case of P.W.8 that the second part of disputed signature of Narra Narsaiah is not fit for comparison with the admitted signatures. Such is the situation, the course adopted by the expert to compare only a part of the disputed signature with the admitted signatures cannot be sustained. Such is the situation, the disputed signature of Narra Suraiah is required to be examined by an expert with the admitted signatures in toto. 10. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed in part at the admission stage and consequently the I.A filed by the petitioners/D1 and D2 is also allowed in part and the signature of Narra Suraiah shall be sent to P.W.8 for comparison with the his admitted signatures in toto and submit report. 29th December, 2009. (B.Seshasayana Reddy,J) tnb THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4332 OF 2009 29th December, 2009.