HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4520 OF 2011 DATED 23RD NOVEMBER, 2011 BETWEEN Kommareddy Sravan Kumar …….Petitioner and Koneru Suresh and ors …… Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4520 OF 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed aggrieved by the order dated 13.10.2011 whereby the learned Principal District Judge, West Godavari, at Eluru, dismissed I.A.No. 2615 of 2011 in O.S.No. 4 of 2009 ﬁled by the petitioners/plaintiﬀs under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking to send the alleged letter dated 20.1.2006 containing disputed signature of the ﬁrst petitioner/ﬁrst plaintiﬀ to Handwriting Expert for comparison with his admitted signatures and for report. The petitioners/plaintiﬀs ﬁled the aforesaid suit against the respondents/defendants for permanent injunction restraining them, their men and followers from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and for awarding damages in a sum of Rs.18,00,000/- along with interest at 24% per annum from the date of suit till realization etc. When the main suit was coming up for adducing further evidence by respondents 2 to 4/defendants 2 to 4 after they examined a witness as DW.4, the petitioners/plaintiﬀs ﬁled the impugned application for the relief as sought for. Pending decision on the said application, the Court below proceeded with the recording of the further evidence of DWs. 2 to 4 and after completion of the evidence, the suit was posted for arguments. At that stage, the impugned application was taken up for hearing and after hearing both sides, the same was dismissed by the order under revision holding that in as much as the second respondent/second defendant has speciﬁcally admitted in his cross- examination as to the existing of the constructions in the property in dispute, there was no need to send the document in question to the Handwriting Expert for his opinion. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the Court below ought to have seen the denial of the averment of the ﬁrst respondent that the ﬁrst petitioner had given letter dated 20.1.2006 undertaking not to create or make constructions in the plaint schedule property. The learned Counsel further submitted that even if DW.3 spoke in his evidence as to the existence of the constructions in the plaint schedule property, it has nothing to do with the alleged undertaking in the letter dated 20.1.2006, which was in fact the denial on the part of the petitioners. He asserted that when parties are disputing the alleged undertaking given in the letter dt. 20.1.2006, it is just and proper to refer such document to handwriting Expert for elucidating truth or otherwise of the same. In support of his contentions, he relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Janachaitanya Housing Ltd Vs. Divya Financiers {2008 (4) ALD 339 (DB)}. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents while reiterating the supervisory jurisdiction conferred on this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution contended that the request of the petitioners is belated. He contended that though the original disputed letter was marked as Ex.A.3 in O.S.No. 199 of 2008 pending on the ﬁle of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, the petitioners, who are also parties therein, without ﬁling such a petition for similar relief therein, insisted upon to send a photocopy of the said letter for expert opinion. The Court below rightly dismissed the impugned application and as such there are no grounds to interfere with the order under revision. It is no doubt true that the supervisory jurisdiction or the power of superintendence conferred upon the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be exercised in cases of erroneous assumption or excess of jurisdiction, refusal to exercise jurisdiction, error of law apparent on the face of the record, violation of the principles of natural justice, arbitrary or capricious exercise of authority, or discretion, arriving at a ﬁnding which is perverse or based on no material, a patent or ﬂagrant error in procedure and orders resulting in manifest injustice. Further, the power of superintendence conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India vests a duty on this Court to keep the inferior Courts and Tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do what their duty requires and that they do it in a legal manner. It is well settled that though no time could be ﬁxed for ﬁling applications under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for sending the disputed signature or writings to a Handwriting Expert for his comparison and opinion, the same shall be left open to the discretion of the court; for exercising such discretion more particularly when exigencies so demand, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the each case. In the case on hand, when it is the case of the petitioners that from the date of the institution of the suit, when the alleged letter Ex.A.1 is a rank forgery, nothing prevented them to seek the present prayer either before or immediately after ﬁling the written statement. It is to be seen that the respondents have ﬁled their written arguments in the suit in the year 2009 itself. Thereafter issues were framed and evidence was being adduced by the petitioners/plaintiﬀ and respondents/defendants. If the dispute is as to the execution of alleged letter, by one of the parties to the suit right from the beginning, the application must have been ﬁled before the evidence is commenced in the case. The reason is that, the witness can be confronted with the document, together with the opinion obtained, in relation thereto, during the course of evidence. Sending a document for expert's opinion, after the concerned witness has been examined in chief and cross; renders the very exercise, almost futile. The witness would not be available for being confronted with the evidence at the later stages. The Court below though not adverted to the said aspect, rightly dismissed the application ﬁled by the plaintiﬀs considering the facts and circumstances of the case, which does not warrant interference. I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the order under revision. The revision petition is therefore liable to be dismissed. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. --------------------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 23RD NOVEMBER, 2011. Msnro