HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.R.P.No. 5914 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. 5914 of 2010 ORDER This revision is directed against the order, dated 16-08-2010, in I.A.No.135 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 Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 151 CPC to send the disputed signatures of himself and his father late Sundara Rama Sastry on Ex.A-1, agreement of sale, dated 14-04-1982, to the handwriting expert to compare the same with their admitted signatures. 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. 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 no delay on the part of the defendant in filing the same and therefore, the defendant is permitted to get the disputed document transmitted to handwriting expert. 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 them. He further contended that their specimen signatures are available with the bank authorities as they opened joint account with the Andhra Bank, Ponnur with Account No.043310011002961. 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 defendant is entitled to get the transmission of disputed signatures of Sundara Rama Sastry and the signatures of defendant on Ex.A-1, sale agreement, dated 14-04-1982 to handwriting expert to compare them with their admitted signatuares? 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.” 9. The trial Court while allowing the application, observed that earlier the defendant filed I.A.No.709 of 2004 to summon the executive officer to produce the minutes bok for comparison of the signature on the minutes book with the signature on the agreement of sale, was dismissed as per the docket order dated 03-09-2004. In the said I.A., another I.A.No.851 of 2004 was filed by the defendant in the year 2004 to summon the Manager, Andhra Bank, Ponnur for production of the specimen signature of late Sundara Rama Sastry with his admitted signatures. So the very filing of the I.A.No.851 of 2004, which was earlier to the present application, indicates that the defendant intended to get the signatures compared with an expert. However, since I.A.No.709 of 2004 was dismissed, automatically, I.A.No.851 of 2004 in I.A.No.709 of 2004 becomes infructuous. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get the suit document compared with the handwriting expert. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that once the evidence is closed and when the matter was posted for arguments, the learned Judge ought to have dismissed the application of this nature. This contention was rejected since earlier also petitioner filed the interlocutory applications to put-forth his contention, hence, I am of the considered opinion that there is no delay on the part of the petitioner to take steps for filing of this application and that the petitioner clearly took the plea of forgery in his written statement also. Therefore, the petitioner shall be given an opportunity to get the disputed sale agreement transmitted to handwriting expert of Truth Lab for comparison of his and his father’s signatures. 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