THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P. No. 2358 of 2011 Dated. 01–07-2011 Between: Namburi Satya Lakshmi and others. …Petitioners Vs. Namburi Vijayanarayan Raju …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.No. 2358 of 2011 01-07-2011 ORAL ORDER: This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 17-02-2011 of the learned I-Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, rejecting I.A.No. 75 of 2011 in O.S.No. 1744 of 2005. The revision petitioners are the plaintiffs, who filed the application in the suit of the year 2005, which was filed for partition of the suit schedule property. The respondent- defendant is the brother of the 1st plaintiff’s husband, who set up a will dated 14-10-2003 allegedly executed by the mother-in-law by name Smt. Namburi Savithri Devi, in defense of the suit claim, to assert that under the said will, the mother-in-law bequeathed her 1/3rd share in the plaint schedule property in favour of respondent-defendant and therefore the plaintiffs are entitled to only 1/3rd share in the plaint schedule property. The will was marked as Ex.B.1, which the petitioners herein pleaded was a fabricated and forged document and that the signature is not that of the mother-in-law Smt. N. Savithri Devi. Ex.B.1 along with the disputed signatures therein and with the admitted signatures – Exs. X.1 to X.10 (of Smt. N. Savithri Devi) were sent for opinion of the expert qua the earlier orders of the Court below in I.A.No. 836 of 2008. The Government Examiner furnished his opinion dated 19-12- 2008 upholding the genuineness of the signatures of Smt. N. Savithri Devi on the will qua the admitted signatures of the lady. Thereupon the revision petitioners obtained permission and got the expert examined at Hyderabad on 14-09-2009 through an advocate commissioner, who filed a report in June, 2010. Despite going through the opinion of the expert, according to the petitioners, they are strongly of the opinion that the will is forged and that the signatures therein are not of Smt. N. Savithri Devi. Hence they filed the application – I.A.No. 75 of 2011 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short ‘the Act’) to send Ex.B.3 will and Exs.X.1 to X.10 to another handwriting expert preferably ‘the Truth Labs’. By the order impugned in this revision, the revision petitioners’ application was rejected. The Court below recorded the fact that the disputed will was earlier sent to the expert for opinion and the opinion as well the cross-examination of the expert are on record in the case and that the suit is ripe for arguments after evidence is concluded, the present application is filed to send the will Ex.B.1 to another expert for opinion; whereas the will is actually marked as Ex.B.3. From the inaccurate description of Ex.B.3 will as Ex.B.1 will, in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No. 75 of 2011, the Court below inferred that the petition was filed only to protract the proceedings when the matter is posted for arguments and that on account of the delayed application as well; filed after the expert had earlier furnished his opinion and was cross-examined, no case is made out for grant of relief. Smt. Ramani Jonna, learned counsel for the revision petitioners would strongly contend that one of the reasons recorded by the Court below for rejection of the application viz., that that the application for sending the document for expert opinion under Section 45 of the Act is belated, is erroneous as delay by itself is not a ground for rejecting the application for sending the disputed document for expert opinion under Section 45 of the Act. Reliance is placed on the decisions of learned single Judges of this Court in M.R. Swarajyalakshmi v. P. Satyanarayana[1]; Velaga Sivarama Krishna v. Velaga Veerabhadra Rao[2] and the decision of a learned Division Bench in Janachaitanya Housing Ltd., v. Divya Financiers[3]. There is no controversy on the legal position, that an application for sending the document in a suit for expert opinion ought not to be rejected on the sole ground of delay in filing the application, provided the Court is satisfied that soliciting such expert opinion would enable the Court to arrive at a correct conclusion as to the nature of disputed document. In the case on hand however Ex.B.3 will was already sent for expert opinion; the opinion was received; the expert was also cross-examined and the petitioners now seek to send the same document for another expert’s opinion, merely because the petitioners ‘strongly feel’ that the will is not genuine. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the application I.A.No. 75 of 2011 in O.S.No. 1744 of 2005 filed by the petitioners is misconceived and the rejection of the said application suffers from no error warranting revisional interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. This revision is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. __________________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM Dated: 01-07-2011 Pvks/* [1] 1999 (1) ALT 222 [2] 2009 (1) ALT 379 [3] 2008 (3) ALT 409 (D.B)