HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5589 of 2009 ORDER: This revision is filed against the order of the Junior Civil Judge, Rajam in I.A. No.938 of 2009 in O.S. No.145 of 2005 dated 27.10.2009. I.A. No.938 of 2009 is an application filed by the petitioners herein under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send the thumb impressions of the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs, along with the sale deed dated 30.01.1976, to the Finger Print Expert for comparison of the thumb impressions on the sale deed with that of the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs. It is the petitioner’s case that she and her husband i.e., the 2nd defendant purchased the property under registered sale deed dated 30.01.1976; after purchasing the plaint schedule property, she and her husband occupied it and were in peaceful possession and enjoyment thereof; they paid cist to the Government and obtained receipts; the Government, recognizing their possession and title over the suit schedule land, had issued pattedar pass books and title deeds in their favour; due to enimity between them, the plaintiffs had filed the suit to grab the property; the petitioners were claiming adverse possession over the suit schedule property; the plaintiffs had deposed that they never sold the plaint schedule property to the petitioner and her husband; the thumb impressions of plaintiffs 1 to 3 on the said document did not belong to them; it was forged and was created; and therefore the Court should send the thumb impressions on the sale deed dated 30.01.1976 to a finger print expert. Before the Court below, the respondents herein contended that the unregistered sale deed was forged; the thumb impressions on the document was not theirs; the document in question was merely an unregistered document; the petitioners had not filed the said document along with the written statement; they had only brought the document at the time of evidence; if really they had obtained an unregistered sale deed in the year 1976, they ought to have taken steps to obtain a regular registered sale deed; the evidence was complete and the suit was coming up for arguments; and, at that stage, the petitioners had filed the petition only to procrastinate the proceedings; the application was belated; the petitioner did not file any admitted thumb impression documents and, therefore, the petition was liable to be dismissed. The Court below observed that the petitioners had, on the one hand, contended that they had purchased the plaint schedule property from the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs by way of the sale deed dated 30.01.1976, and their right was recognized as they were paying cist by occupying the land; and on the other they had claimed adverse possession. The Court below held that these two different and contrary pleas could not be simultaneously maintained; the petitioners must stand on one plea; they did not take any steps after obtaining the sale deed dated 30.01.1976, or even after filing of the suit to have the document registered; the suit was of the year 2005; the petitioners did not file a copy of the sale deed even at the time of filing the written statement; in their written statement they did not state that the sale deed was an unregistered document; the suit was coming up for arguments of both sides; the petitioners had already adduced evidence along with documentary evidence; and, at that stage, the application for sending the document to a finger print expert was filed only to procrastinate the matter and to drag on proceedings; and there were no bonafides in the petition. Sri Taddi Nageswara Rao, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act could be filed at any stage of the proceedings; and the Court below ought to have sent the document to a hand writing expert for comparison of thumb impressions as the said document was crucial for deciding title. Learned Counsel would rely on Janachaitanya Housing Ltd. v. Divya Financiers[1] in this regard. In Janachaitanya Housing Ltd1, the Division bench of this Court was called upon to examine whether an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, filed for sending the signatures for comparison and expert opinion, could be entertained at a later stage, including when the matter came up for arguments after trial. It was contended on behalf of the petitioners therein that the Trial Court had committed an illegality in exercising discretion at the fag end of trial i.e., after closing of the evidence; such application could not be entertained at a belated stage; and, allowing the I.A, amounted to reopening the suit for the purpose of leading evidence, which was not warranted. The Division bench, after referring to several judgments in this regard, observed that no hard and fast rule could be laid down for controlling the discretion of the Court to send the disputed documents/writings for the opinion of an expert, or to examine him in support of such an opinion; on showing sufficient cause, a party could call upon the Court to permit them to examine a hand-writing expert, or any other witness in support of or to rebut the said opinion; no time could be fixed for filing applications under Section 45 of the Evidence Act for sending the disputed signature or writings to a handwriting expert for comparison and opinion; these matters should be left to the Court for exercising discretion, when exigencies so demanded depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It is, thus, evident that, while delay by itself may not be fatal for referring a document to a handwriting expert, the Court below has to exercise its discretion whether or not to send the document for examination by a handwriting expert on the facts and circumstances of the case before it. Exercise of discretion by the Court below must be for just and valid reasons. In the case on hand, the Court below had held that the very fact that the document was of the year 1976; the said unregistered sale deed had not been filed along with the written statement; the petitioners had kept silent till evidence was completed, before making such a request for sending the document for finger print examination; and they were taking contrary pleas; showed that the purpose of filing such an application was only to drag on proceedings. It is not necessary that the Court must refer a document for verification by a hand writing expert in each and every case where such a request is made. In the case on hand the Court below has, for just and valid reasons, come to the conclusion that it was inappropriate to send the document for verification to a hand writing expert. This Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, would not sit in appeal or substitute its opinion for that of the Court below. All that this Court is required to examine is whether the conclusions arrived at by the Court below, either for sending or not sending a document for verification by a handwriting expert, is based on reasonable grounds. It cannot be said that the order of the Court below, in the case on hand, suffers from a patent illegality necessitating interference in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Revision Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Date: .07.2010 [1] 2008(3) ALT 409 (D.B.)