HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 3563, 3564, 3567,3568 AND 3569 OF 2011 DATED 23rd DECEMBER, 2011. BETWEEN Smt. Patcha Rohini and ors …Petitioners in all CRPs And Karri Veera Venkata Reddy and ors ….Respondents in all CRPs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 3563, 3564, 3567,3568 AND 3569 OF 2011 ------------------------------- COMMON ORDER: These Civil Revision Petitions can be disposed of by this common order in as much as the parties thereto and subject matter involved therein are one and the same. The first respondent herein instituted different suits, namely, O.S.Nos.30, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 40 of 2008 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, against the revision petitioners as well as respondents 2 to 4 herein, who are the defendants in the aforesaid suits, for recovery of the alleged amounts with subsequent interest at 12% per annum basing on the strength of the alleged pronotes said to have been executed by the husband of the first revision petitioner herein, namely, late Patcha Venkata Rama Rao. In all the said suits, evidence was closed and they were posted for arguments on 15.4.2011. While so, three days prior to closing of the evidence, the revision petitioners had filed impugned interlocutory applications under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking to send the alleged promissory notes to a Handwriting Expert for comparison of the admitted signatures of the late Patcha Venkata Rama Rao with the disputed signatures appearing on the subject pronotes. The Court below, by the impugned orders, dismissed the said applications. Hence, these revision petitions. Herd both sides. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners that the subject promotes are rank forgery and that there was no necessity for the late husband of the first revision petitioner to borrow the amounts covered by the suit pronotes. He further submitted that the impugned orders therefore suffer from an error apparent on the face of the record and that the Court below failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it in the proper perspective. He argued that when the revision petitioners averred that late Patcha Venkata Rama Rao never borrowed any amount from the first respondent during his lifetime and never executed the subject promissory notes and the same were rank forgery, the Court below ought to have referred the subject promissory notes to a handwriting expert for comparison and report thereof. In support of his submissions, he relied on the decisions of this Court in Medikonda Rama Swarajyalakshmi Vs. Posina Satyanarayana {1999 (1) ALT 222}, Mr. Mudumuru Vijayanandh Vs. Smt. Potnuru Bhagyalakshmi {AIR 2005 AP 35}, Jalagaurula Eswara Rao Vs. Davala Surya Rao {AIR 2011 AP 78} and Janachaitanya Housing Limited Vs.Divya Financiers {2008 (3) ALD 409 (DB)}. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the first respondent supported the impugned orders. He submitted that the Court below rightly dismissed the petitions filed by the revision petitioners seeking to send the promissory notes to a handwriting expert. He contended that the impugned applications were filed at belated stage and as such the Court below rightly observed that these applications were filed only to protract the suit proceedings. Perused the case files. There is no dispute as to the ratio decidedi in the aforesaid decisions relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. The aforesaid decisions laid down that although no time could be fixed for filing an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for sending the disputed signature or writings to a Handwriting Expert for his comparison and opinion, however, the same shall be left open to the discretion of the court; for exercising such discretion more particularly when exigencies so demand, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the each case. In the case on hand, the first respondent herein filed the suits in the year 2008 and the revision petitioners have filed written statements in the said suits on 01.09.2008 denying the averments made in the suits and that the suits pronotes were forged and fabricated documents and the same were brought into existence by the first respondent/plaintiff in collusion with others to have wrongful gain. As can be seen from the record, the alleged suits promotes are of the year 2005. When it is the case of the petitioners that from the date of the institution of the suit, when the alleged pronotes were rank forgery, nothing prevented them to seek the present prayer either before or immediately after filing their written statements. It is to be seen that the respondents filed their written arguments in the said suits in the year 2008 itself. Thereafter, issues were framed and evidence was being adduced by the petitioners/plaintiffs and respondents/defendants. If the dispute is as to the execution of alleged suit pronotes, by one of the parties to the suits right from the beginning, the applications therefore must have been filed before the evidence in the cases is commenced. The reason is that, the witness can be confronted with the document, together with the opinion obtained, in relation thereto, during the course of evidence. Sending a document for expert's opinion, after the concerned witness has been examined in chief and cross; renders the very exercise, almost futile. The witness would not be available for being confronted with the evidence at the later stages. Further, if the prayer of the petitioners is allowed to stand it will not attain finality, and the learned trial Judge in his discretion, may accept the expert's evidence or may not accept the same. Further, if for any reason the trial court decides the issue merely on the basis of the expert evidence, the same is capable of correction in appeal, if any, preferred by the aggrieved party. (See. Surya Dev Rao Vs.Ram Chander Rao: 2003 (5) ALT 19(SC)}. It is well settled legal principle that the opinion of an expert with regard to the signatures or handwriting in the disputed documents is not conclusive, but is only a piece of evidence and it is for the Court to arrive at its own conclusion on appreciation. It is to be seen that in all the decisions relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, referred to supra, the interlocutory applications under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking opinion of a Handwriting Expert were filed either immediately after filing the Written statement or during the trial or before closure of the evidence. However, in the case on hand, on behalf of the first respondent/plaintiff P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.3 in the respective suits were got marked. After closure of her evidence, on behalf of the revision petitioners/ defendants, the first revision petitioner/defendant was examined as DW.1 and she filed her affidavit on 9.2.2011. During her cross-examination, she admitted that she did not make any effort to send the alleged promissory notes to an expert. This itself shows that she is not diligent enough to prosecute her case. On the other hand, the filing of the applications after the closure of the evidence and once the suits were posted for arguments, gives indicia that the she filed those applications only to protract the suit proceedings but not otherwise. The Court below, though not adverted to all these aspects, rightly dismissed the applications filed by the revision petitioners considering the facts and circumstances of the cases by the orders under revision, which do not warrant interference by this Court. For the foregoing reasons, I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders. The revision petitions are therefore liable to be dismissed. In the result, the Civil Revision Petitions are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. -------------------------------------- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 23rd DECEMBER, 2011. Msnro