HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY C.R.P.No. 2435 of 2009 O R D E R: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 24.04.2009 passed in I.A.No. 141 of 2009 in O.S.No. 61 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Jangaon, whereby and whereunder the learned Senior Civil Judge allowed the Application filed by the defendants under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act read with 151 C.P.C. to send the documents, Exs.A1 to A4 to an expert for opinion. On 12.06.2009, an order of interim suspension has been granted vide C.R.P.M.P.No. 3383 of 2009. The respondents entered appearance and filed C.R.P.M.P.No. 6851 of 2009 with a prayer to vacate the interim order, dated 12.06.2009. When the vacate stay petition came up for consideration, with the consent of the counsel appearing for the parties, the Civil Revision Petition is taken up for final disposal. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-plaintiff, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-defendants and perused the order impugned in the Revision. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-plaintiff submits that Exs.A1 to A4 are of the year 2004 and the respondents/defendants have not placed on record any contemporaneous documents containing the signatures/thumb impression, in which case, it is impermissible to send Exs.A1 to A4 to an expert for opinion. In support of his submission, reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in Renu Devi Kedia v. Seetha Devi[1], wherein it has been held as hereunder: “ The learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff submits that the disputed signatures, which are to be compared with the admitted signatures are of the year 1995 and whereas specimen signatures obtained in the open Court are of the year 2004 and the gap of the two signatures is about nine years and in such a situation the opinion of the handwriting expert is not of much use in resolving the issue in the suit. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the decision of our High Court in Vadrevu Annapurnamma v. Vadrevu Bhima Sankara Rao and others (AIR 1960 AP 359), wherein it has been held: “ It is not of much use to compare a signature of a person said to have been made in 1950 with that made six years earlier in 1944 as there is likely to be some change in the signature”. Coming to the facts on hand, the disputed signatures are of the year 1995 and whereas the specimen signatures are of the year 2004, there is a gap of nearly nine years between the two signatures. So far as signatures of the petitioner appearing in written statement etc., there is every possibility of his disguising his style of signature so as to make them dissimilar with the disputed signatures. Since there are no contemporaneous signatures for comparison with the disputed signatures, there is no useful purpose in sending the suit documents to an expert for his opinion. The trial Court considered the matter in right perspective and dismissed the application. I do not see any valid ground to interfere with the impugned order.” Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-defendants submits that though contemporaneous signatures/thumb impressions of the respondents/defendants are not furnished, still Exs.A1 to A4 can be sent to an expert for comparison with the signatures/thumb impressions obtained from Respondents/defendants in open Court. In support of his submission, reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court in P. Venkatramana v. M. Venkataramana[2]. Para 5 of the judgment reads as hereunder: “ It is no doubt permissible for a Court to undertake comparison of hand writing or signatures to certain extent. However, the Court had its own limitations in the matter of expressing any definite opinion, unless the facts are so glaring. Though the contemporaneous signature or the hand writing of a party, if available, would be of immense use for effective comparison, it is not as if, opinion cannot be expressed, in the absence of such material. Experts are known for their ability to give opinion, depending upon the manner of hand writing, slant, letters etc. An expert would be in a position to render proper opinion, even if the signatory or author of writing changes the pattern, at a later point of time that is the very essence of expertise. The reasons furnished by the trial Court do not accord with the settled principles of law.” The above-referred decision came to be rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court on the fact situation of the case, wherein it has been asserted that contemporaneous signatures were not made available. Coming to the facts of the case, it is not the case of the Respondents/defendants that contemporaneous documents containing the signatures/thumb impressions of them are not available. There is no assertion in the affidavit filed in support of the same that such documents are not available with them. Therefore, the cited case has no application to the facts of the case on hand. With regard to the thumb impressions, ridge characteristics once formed will subsist to the end. Therefore, there would not be any difficulty for an expert to give opinion with regard to the disputed thumb impressions with the thumb impressions obtained from the parties before the Court. With regard to the hand writings, there is no assertion by the Respondents/defendants that they do not possess the contemporaneous documents containing the signatures. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge with regard to sending Exs.A1 to A4 for comparison of signature of Respondent No.1/Defendant No.1 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed in part, setting aside the order, dated 24.04.2009 in I.A.No. 141 of 2009 in respect of sending the signature of Respondent No.1/Defendant No.1 appearing on Exs.A1 to A4 for comparison in the absence of any contemporaneous signatures. The order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge with regard to sending the thumb impressions of Respondent No.2 for being comparison with the disputed thumb impressions appearing on Exs.A1 to A4 is upheld. No costs. ------------------------------------ (B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J) 27th October 2009 ksld [1] 2004(6) ALT 429 [2] 2009(5) ALT 113