IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABD WEDNESDAY, THE NINETH [9TH] DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE. Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.4890 of 2009 Between: Kanakala Rami Naidu … Petitioner And: Pukkalla Tulasamma & 5 others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.4890 of 2009 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 07.09.2009 in IA No.134 of 2009 in IA No.396 of 2009 in IA No.578 of 2002 in OS No.76 of 2002 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Cheepurpalli, wherein the petition filed by the revision petitioner/ plaintiff under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for sending the signatures on Ex.P.2-un-registered Will said to have been executed by Pukkala Yerrayya, to the Handwriting Expert for comparison and opinion, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and learned counsel for the first respondent-claim petitioner. None appears for the respondents 2 to 5. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein filed suit in OS No.76 of 2002 for recovery of amount due under a pronote said to have been executed by respondents 2 to 5 herein. In the said suit, the plaintiff sought attachment of the property before judgment and the same was ordered in IA No.578 of 2002. The first respondent herein, who is a third party to the suit, filed claim petition in IA No.396 of 2002 claiming to be the owner of the property under attachment and seeking to raise the attachment on the ground that her husband/deceased P. Yerraiah executed a Will dated 04.12.1992 in her favour and that she is the absolute owner of the property and is in possession and enjoyment of the same by virtue of the Will. The revision petitioner herein contested the said application. During enquiry, the petitioner filed IA No.134 of 2009 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for sending the disputed Will to the Handwriting Expert for comparison opinion with the admitted signatures contained in Ex.A.3 Building Plan said to have been submitted by the deceased while seeking permission for construction of the building, which is said to have been under attachment. The first respondent herein opposed the said application. After enquiry, the learned Junior Civil Judge dismissed the petition IA No.134 of 2009 observing that no useful purpose will be served by sending the disputed signatures to the expert for his opinion. 4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that the building plan was submitted by the deceased Yerraiah in the year 1989 and the alleged Will was executed in the year 1992 and the admitted signatures contained in the building plan can be considered to be a contemporaneous nature. Learned counsel for the first respondent on the other hand contended that the signatures of the deceased Yerraiah available in the office of Ferro Alloys Corporation (for short ‘FACOR’], Garividi, where the deceased worked and the petitioner ought to have take steps for summoning those documents instead of building plan, which was submitted three years prior to the date of Will. 5. As the time lag between the date of the building plan and the date of Will is only three years, it cannot be said that the building plan which contained the admitted signature of the deceased Yerraiah was not contemporaneous in nature. 6. In ‘Velaga Sivarama Krishna vs. Velaga Veerabhadra Rao & another[1]’, this Court held as follows: “Whenever a party disputes the signature on a particular document, two remedies are open to him, either to request the Court to compare the signatures or to file an application to send the document to the expert for comparison. When the petitioner opted to file an application to send the document to the Handwriting Expert, no prejudice will be caused to either party. When he is asserting that the signature is that of the said party, even though there is a gap between the disputed signatures and admitted signatures, a science has been developed to compare such signatures also by taking into consideration the direction of the strokes, the speed of writing, the pattern of writing etc., therefore, it cannot be said that no useful purpose will be served by sending the document to the expert. After comparison, if the similarities of the disputed signature and the admitted signatures are very negligible, then the Court can formulate its opinion with the assistance of the expert’s report and by comparing the signatures whether the report has to be accepted or not.” 7. As the deceased Yerraiah worked in the office of FACOR, Garividi, the signatures of the deceased would certainly be available in the said office of FACOR, which are nearer to the date of alleged Will. It is, therefore, considered just and expedient to direct that the records containing the admitted signatures of the deceased Yerraiah available in the office of FACOR, also be summoned and sent to the Handwriting Expert along with the building plan Ex.P.3 for comparison and opinion regarding the genuineness of the signature of the deceased Yerraiah on the disputed will Ex.P.2. 8. In the circumstances, the impugned order dismissing IA No.134 of 2009 is held unsustainable and the said impugned order is liable to be set aside and accordingly it is set aside. 9. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed with the above direction. No order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 09.12.2009 bss [1] 2009(1) ALD 265