THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4014 of 2009 ORDER: The respondent filed O.S.No.215 of 2008 in the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool against the petitioner for recovery of amount on the basis of a promissory note, dated 04.04.2005. The petitioner opposed the suit by filing a written statement. Issues were framed and both the parties adduced evidence. At the stage of arguments, the petitioner filed I.A.No.215 of 2009 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act (for short ‘the Act’) with a prayer to send the promissory note for expert’s opinion. The application was opposed by the respondent. Through its order, dated 04.08.2009, the trial Court dismissed the I.A. by relying upon the judgment rendered by this Court in Pulaparti Sankuntala Bai Vs. Mygapula Ramanjaneyulu[1]. The petitioner challenges the said order. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. The principal ground urged by the petitioner is that the judgment referred to supra was explained and in a way overruled by a Division Bench of this Court in Janachaitanya Housing Limited Vs. Divya Financiers[2]. He submits that no time limit can be stipulated for filing of applications under Section 45 of the Act. The Division Bench examined various aspects of the matter and summed up its conclusions in para 16 as under: "For the reasons aforementioned, we answer the reference thus: “No time could be fixed for filing applications under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for sending the disputed signature or writings to the handwriting expert for comparison and opinion and same shall be left open to the discretion of the Court; for exercising such discretion when exigencies so demand, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the each case.” From this, it is evident that no hard and fast rule can be laid as to the stage at which the application under Section 45 of the Act can be filed. The matter is left to the discretion of the Court and it has to examine the exigencies and other aspects depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. The judgment rendered by the Division Bench was not cited before the trial Court. Even now, the trial Court can be required to examine the matter from the point of view of the exigencies and other aspects as pointed out by the Division Bench. Hence, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial Court for fresh consideration and disposal on perusal of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 13.12.2010. kdl [1] 2006(3) ALT 607 [2] 2008(3) ALT 409 (D.B.)