HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.R.P.No. 5915 of 2010 Date: 21-01-2011 Between: Mandagiri Chinnaiah ………. Appellant and Pulikonda Muralidhara Gupta ……… Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.R.P.No. 5915 of 2010 ORDER This revision is directed against the order, dated 30-08-2010, in I.A.No.134 of 2010 in O.S.No.265 of 2004 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge (F.T.C.), Guntur, wherein the Court below allowed the I.A. filed by the respondent herein under Order XVI Rules 1 and 6 and Section 151 CPC to summon the Executive Officer, Sri Sahasralingeswara Swamy Devasthanam, Ponnur, for production of minute Books containing the signatures of his father, the then Chairman of the Trust Board, pertaining to the years 1981 to 1983. 2. The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant in O.S.No.265 of 2004. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein after are referred to as they were arrayed in O.S.No.265 of 2004. 4. Originally, the suit was filed for specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 14-04-1982. While the suit was pending consideration, the defendant filed the above application with a prayer as stated supra. The Court below allowed the said application holding that there is a considerable reason in the request made by the defendant as the defendant wants to get the signatures of his father contained in the minute books available in the devasthanam pertaining to the years 1981 to 1983, as the agreement of sale is alleged to have been executed in the year 1982. Challenging the same, the plaintiff filed this revision petition contending that the present application was filed after a long gap of six years from the date of filing of the suit and that the plaintiff’s side evidence was already completed and therefore filing this application at this stage cannot be maintainable and, therefore, he prayed to allow the revision by setting aside the impugned order passed by the Court below. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant and perused the material available on record. 6. As seen from the record, it is clear that the plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant alleging that there is an agreement of sale between him and the defendant. However, the defendant contended that the signatures on the agreement alleged to have been signed by him and his father are forged and there is no agreement of sale existing between him and the plaintiff. He further contended that as his father worked in the Devasthanam as Chairman in the years 1981 – 1983, his specimen signatures are available with the Devasthanam authorities in their minute books. If the said signatures are compared with the disputed signatures on the suit contract of sale, the truth will come out. 7. Now the point for consideration is as to whether the respondent-defendant is entitled to seek summons for the production of minute books containing the signatures of the then Chairman pertaining to the period of 1981 to 1983? 8. Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act reads as follows:- “When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law, or of science, or art, or as to identify of hand writing or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, or in questions as to identify of handwriting or finger-impressions, are relevant facts.” A perusal of the above provision makes it clear that to form an opinion upon the point of foreign law or art etc. to identify of handwriting or finger impressions, the Court has to send the documents to the expert concerned. 9. The trial Court while allowing the application, observed that the defendant wants to get the signatures of his father contained in the minute books available with the Devasthanam authorities pertaining to the period 1981-1983 which is relating to the period of sale agreement, dated 14-04-1982. Therefore, the defendant is entitled to seek summons to the Executive Officer, Sri Sahasralingeswara Swamy Devasthanam for the production of minute books containing the signatures of his father. 10. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff is that once the evidence is closed, and at the stage of arguments, filing of application of this nature cannot be entertained by the Court below and therefore, the Court below ought to have dismissed the said application. This contention is unsustainable since the defendant earlier also filed the application in I.A.No.133 of 2010 seeking to summon the documents for the same purpose. But, however, the said application was dismissed on the ground that the documents, sought to be summoned by the defendant, are not pertaining to the period of sale agreement. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that there is no delay on the part of the defendant to take steps for filing of the application and that the defendant clearly took the plea of forgery in his written statement also. Therefore, the respondent-defendant shall be given an opportunity to get the summons to the executive officer, Sri Sahasralingeswara Swamy Devasthanam, Ponnur. 11. I do not see any legal infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Court below. Hence, the revision is liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ Justice Ghulam Mohammed Date: 21-01-2011 KVR