THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.2020 of 2011 (Dated : 08-09-2011) Between: Maddipatla Sankaraiah Naidu …Petitioner A n d Maddipatla chandraiah Naidu …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.2020 of 2011 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 6-5-2011 passed in I.A.No.81 of 2011 in O.S.No.50 of 2000 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Rajampet, Kadapa District, whereby and whereunder, the learned Junior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioner-defendant under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act read with Section 151 CPC to send the agreement of sale dated 15- 12-94 and sale deed dated 7-3-1990 to the handwriting expert for comparison of thumb impressions of P.Subba Rayudu appearing thereon. 2(a). The petitioner herein is the defendant and whereas the respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.50 of 2000 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Rajampet. The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 15-12-1994. The petitioner- defendant filed written statement disputing the agreement of sale said to have been executed by his father. The plaintiff closed evidence on his behalf on 10-4-2007. The petitioner-defendant took number of adjournments for adducing evidence on his behalf. On 28-2-2011, he moved I.A.No.81 of 2011 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act read with Section 151 CPC seeking the following relief:- “ For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit it is prayed that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to send the suit agreement of sale dated 15.12.1994 and the original registered sale deed dated 07.03.1990 to the hand writing expert for comparison of the thumb impressions in the two documents and signatures on power of attorney and signatures on chief affidavit of P.W.1 which was achieved (sic) on 06.06.2006 for comparison and to give opinion in the interest of justice”. 2(b). The respondent-plaintiff filed counter resisting the application. It is stated in the counter that the petitioner-defendant moved the application at a belated stage to drag on the proceedings in the suit. 3. The learned Junior Civil Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the petitioner filed the petition to drag on the suit and there are no bonafides in the petition and thereby, proceeded to dismiss the application, by order dated 6-5- 2011. Paragraph (8) of the order need to be noted and it is thus:- “Upon considering the submissions of the respective counsel and perusal of the records it appears that the suit is filed for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 15-12-1994, alleging that the same was executed by the father of the defendants in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants denied the execution of agreement of sale by their father and the defendants mainly alleged that the power of attorney executed by the plaintiff in favour of his wife is forged. In this matter the plaintiff got examined P.W.1 to P.W.3 in the year 2006, the defendant cross examined at length, and defendant also examined as D.W.1, when the suit is posted for further evidence of the defendant, the defendant come with this petition. The suit is of the year 2000 and pending since more than 10 years, the defendant has to file this petition immediately after filing of their written statement. If they really require the opinion of export on the thumb impression of their father. However the defendants kept quite all these years. The conduct of the petitioner reveals that the suit be protracted in some way or other further the defendant attacked the witnesses in their cross examination with regard to genuinity of the agreement of sale.” Hence this revision. 4. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 20-6-2011. The petitioner was permitted to take out notice to the respondent through the counsel appeared on his behalf in the trial Court. Accordingly, the petitioner took out notice and filed proof of service. Despite service being effected through counsel appeared on his behalf, the respondent did not choose to enter appearance. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the order impugned in the revision. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner moved the application before closure of evidence on his behalf and therefore, it cannot be said that the petition is a belated one. He would further submit that even if there is delay in moving the application, the same can be considered on some terms. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Kolli Ranga Rao and another v. Kolli Varalakshmi Janani[1]. Much emphasis has been laid on para (16) of the cited judgment, which read as hereunder:- “ It is clear that, the respondents have taken seven or eight adjournments for adducing their evidence and for the delay caused by them, the Court ought to have imposed reasonable costs. While passing orders on interlocutory applications, generally, the Court should avoid making comments on the merits of the case and as to whether the evidence adduced by one party is trustworthy or not and whether the evidence of any particular witness is shaken or not, such observations appear to be not necessary and moreover, create a reasonable apprehension in the mind of a party and therefore, it is always better to avoid such comments. Though the power of the Courts to send a document to an expert under Section 45 of the Act is a discretionary power, the Courts have to exercise the discretion in a just and reasonable manner and if there are any lapses on the part of the party, the Court may consider those lapses but merely because there are some laches or some delay on the part of a party, that should not come in the way of rejecting their claim. Point No.1 is answered accordingly.” 7. Coming to the facts of the case on hand, the respondent-plaintiff closed his evidence in the year 2006. Even accepting the contention of the counsel appearing for the petitioner, the respondent-plaintiff closed his evidence on 10-4-2007, the suit underwent many adjournments since then. The petitioner moved an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act read with Section 151 CPC to send the agreement of sale dated 15-12-1994 and the original registered sale deed dated 7-3-1980 to the handwriting expert on 28-02-2011. More than three years have been lapsed from the date of closure of evidence on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff. Such a long delay has not been properly explained. In the absence of any explanation, the order impugned in the revision does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.08-09-2011 *RAR [1] 2011(3) ALD 547