THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH C.R.P.No.1012 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 18-01-2010, passed in I.A.No.1143 of 2009 in O.P.No.94 of 2007 by the II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, wherein the learned Judge allowed the said application filed by the 1st respondent herein, who is the 3rd respondent in the said O.P., in referring the documents mentioned therein to the handwriting expert for comparison and opinion. The petitioners herein along with respondents 2 to 9 herein filed O.P.No.94 of 2007 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, seeking to declare the Resolutions, dated 05-03-2004, 05-03-2005, 15-06- 2005, 05-03-2006, 05-06-2006, 05-12-2006, 05-03-2007 and 05-03-2007 said to have been passed and submitted by the respondents therein for registration before the District Registrar of Assurances, Chittoor, for amending the Memorandum of Association and Bye-Laws of the 1st petitioner Society as null and void and they are not binding upon petitioners 2 to 10 therein and also to declare that the respondents therein are not the members of the 1st petitioner-Society. The said O.P. was contested by the respondents therein. Pending suit, the petitioners therein sought injunction restraining the respondents therein from interfering with the Management of the 1st petitioner Society, but the trial Court refused to grant injunction. Aggrieved by the said refusal order, dated 19-03-2008, in I.A.No.626 of 2007 in O.P.No.94 of 2007 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, the petitioners in the said O.P. filed C.M.A.No.281 of 2008 before this Court and this Court by order, dated 01-07-2008, disposed of the said C.M.A. by observing as follows:- “….. As rightly observed by the learned District Judge in para 20 of the impugned order a detailed enquiry is required to be conducted regarding the various contentions raised by the parties. It is not desirable to allow the educational institutions to run on the strength of interim orders, thereby exposing the career of the prospective children intending to join the institution to peril. It is, therefore, considered just and appropriate that the O.P. itself is finally disposed of by the learned Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, within a reasonable time. In the circumstances, without going into the merits of the case, this appeal is disposed with a direction to the learned Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, to dispose of the O.P. within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” Thereafter, it is stated that the evidence of the petitioners was completed in October, 2008 and thereafter, the respondents have commenced their evidence and examined four witnesses and while the matter was coming up for further evidence on behalf of respondents 11 to 24 since June, 2009, the 3rd respondent in the said O.P. i.e., one Sri C.Ramesh Kumar Reddy filed I.A.No.1143 of 2009 under Order XXVI Rule 10 A CPC for sending certain documents, which were marked as exhibits, and other documents to the Handwriting expert along with admitted signatures for comparison and opinion. It is not in dispute that the evidence on behalf of the respondents is not over and the matter is coming up for their further evidence. It is the case of the 1st respondent herein that certain minutes made for some other purpose were used for some other purpose and the signatures of certain members of the Society were forged and submitted dummy minutes book to the Registrar by inserting certain words as General Body Meeting. There are exclusion of words in certain resolutions and that the agenda is not for the General Body Meeting. Further, there are certain manipulations, interpolations and incorporations. It is stated that the signature of B.Shyamala (Ex.P-4) found in Ex.B-43 (letter addressed to the Treasurer by the Secretary/Correspondent requesting to give membership receipt to the persons, who were paid Rs.5,000/- to the Society towards Life Membership Subscription) was forged, so Ex.B-43 should be compared with the admitted signature of B.Shyamala found in Ex.B-23. It is stated that during the course of marking said documents, the petitioners in the O.P. have raised certain objections stating that they are fake documents and, therefore, to prove the said documents as genuine, they are required to be sent to the Handwriting expert. The said application was resisted by the respondents in the I.A. The court below vide its order, dated 18-01-2010, allowed the said application. Aggrieved thereby, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. I have perused the impugned order. Admittedly, there are allegations and counter allegations against each other with regard to the genuineness or otherwise of the documents and also about genuineness of the meetings whether they are executive committee meetings or general body meetings and whether minutes have been manipulated and whether the records are genuine or fabricated which are said to have been used by the petitioners for renewal of registration. In fact, the petitioners in the O.P. have taken objection during the course of marking Exs.B-5, B-10, B-23, B-37, B-43, B-51 and B-56 stating that they are fake and forged documents. Therefore, the burden lies on the respondents in the O.P. to prove the genuineness of those documents, which could be possible only by getting those documents compared with admitted signatures. So also, the respondents in the said O.P. seek to send Exs.A-1 and A-8 for comparison of the disputed signatures. I am of the opinion that the O.P. filed by the petitioners is based on certain records of the Society and according to the respondents in the said O.P., the said records are manipulated and signatures are forged. Therefore, it cannot be said that the reference of the documents to the handwriting expert for comparison and opinion is not essential. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the court below, after hearing both sides, had rightly allowed the said application. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity legal or otherwise in the impugned order so as to call for interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 09-07-2010 Prv