IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.2050 of 2008 Between: P. Jangaiah .. Petitioner AND P. Suguna .. Respondent ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the dismissal of the petition filed by the defendant to send the disputed signatures of M. Renuka Devi on Ex.A.3 along with the admitted signatures on Ex.A.1 and B.1 to B.35 to the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, for comparison and opinion in I.A.No.1975 of 2007 in O.S.No.3359 of 2004 on the file of V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dated 03-03-2008. The claim of the plaintiff for eviction of the defendant from the subject property is based on the entitlement of the plaintiff to the property under a Will said to have been executed by M. Renuka Devi on 01-03-2002. The defendant claims the Will to be forged and fabricated. The main question in controversy between the parties in the suit is whether the said Will is true, valid and binding on the defendant. The burden of proof on the said issue is squarely on the plaintiff. The trial Court opined that there was no need to send the disputed signatures to an expert for comparison with any admitted signatures at the stage at which it was considering the petition. It is stated by the learned counsel for the parties that the evidence for the plaintiff was already completed in the part-heard suit and the matter is coming on for defendant’s evidence. Learned counsel for the respondent herein claimed that a memo was filed into Court reserving a right to adduce any rebuttal evidence. While no opinion need be expressed herein about any right of the plaintiff to adduce any rebuttal evidence on this particular issue, the exercise of judicial discretion by the trial Court not to send the document to an expert need not be interfered with, as the trial Court will undoubtedly appreciate whether the plaintiff has established the balance of probabilities in favour of acceptance of the Will on the evidence placed before it and as any opinion of a Handwriting expert is also merely an opinion. It is also to be noted that comparison of handwritings is not yet an absolute science and therefore, in the circumstances, I find no error of jurisdiction in the impugned order, which requires no interference in the revision. However, if after adducing the defendant’s evidence and the rebuttal evidence for the plaintiff, if any, the trial Court finds any justification for considering the request to send the disputed signature for comparison with the admitted signatures of M. Renuka Devi by a Handwriting expert, it will be perfectly open for the trial Court to adopt such a course and the revision petitioner will be at liberty to make any such request to the trial Court at that stage, which will be considered by the trial Court and decided on merits in accordance with law uninfluenced by any observations made in this order. Subject to the above, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 17-06-2010 Ksn