IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5570 of 2010 BETWEEN Mogal Allabakah Baig. ... PETITIONER AND Defadargari Shaik Abdul Rahiman and another. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. S.V. BHATT Counsel for the Respondents: --NONE APPEARED-- The Court made the following: ORDER: This civil revision petition arises out of the order dated 25.11.2010 passed by the learned V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty in I.A.No.778 of 2010 in O.S.No.22 of 2008. By the said order, the trial Court accepted the plea of the respondents herein, the defendants in the suit, to send Ex.B4, an unregistered agreement of sale dated 18.01.2002 to a handwriting expert along with the admitted signatures of the petitioner/plaintiff and P.W.2 which came into existence during the years 2000-2003 for comparison and to give an opinion. 2. This Court, by order dated 01.12.2010, granted interim stay of all further proceedings in the suit. 3. Despite service of notice, the respondents herein did not choose to enter appearance in this CRP in person or through counsel. 4. The suit, O.S.No.22 of 2008, was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 20.02.2002 (Ex.A1) along with alternate reliefs. The subject application, I.A.No.778 of 2010 was field by the defendants stating that the petitioner/plaintiff had fabricated Ex.A1 agreement of sale on the blank stamp papers signed by them and that it was necessary for the Court to take the assistance of a Forensic Science Expert to verify the spacing and alignment of the body of the handwriting and the signatures in Ex.A1 and to decipher the underneath signatures of the plaintiff, M. Allabaksh Baig, in Ex.B4 and to compare the signatures of the petitioner/plaintiff and P.W.2 with their signatures in Ex.B4. The petitioner/plaintiff contested the said application by filing his counter wherein he stated that there was no need or necessity for seeking the opinion of a handwriting expert under Sections 45 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and that the application had been filed only to cause delay in the matter. He further pointed out that Ex.B4 dated 18.01.2002 had been produced by the respondents/defendants themselves and therefore, examination of the signatures under the struck off portion in the said document would not serve any purpose. 5. The trial Court, having adverted to the fact that the defendants admitted their signatures in Ex.A1 agreement of sale and that the petitioner/plaintiff did not press his earlier application for referring Ex.A1 agreement of sale to a handwriting expert for the purpose of verifying the genuineness of the signatures owing to this admission by the defendants, agreed with the petitioner/plaintiff that the said document need not be sent to a handwriting expert for the purpose of verifying the spacing or alignment in the handwriting in the document which could be assessed by the Court itself. The trial Court also agreed that as Ex.B4 had been produced by the defendants themselves, no purpose would be served by enquiring into the signatures of the plaintiff under the obliterated portion therein. However, as the petitioner/plaintiff denied his signature as a second attestor in the endorsement dated 16.01.2003 at page 6 of Ex.B4 and P.W.2 also denied his signature as second attestor for the payment endorsement dated 02.10.2002 in Ex.B4, the trial Court was of the opinion that the defendants could not be prevented from sending the document, Ex.B4, to a handwriting expert for comparison with the admitted signatures of the plaintiff and P.W.2. It was for this purpose that the trial Court allowed the application, though being of the opinion that it had been filed belatedly. 6. Once the respondents/defendants admitted their signatures in Ex.A1 and it was their plea that the petitioner/plaintiff had fabricated the agreement of sale on their signed stamp papers, it is for them to prove the same. The purpose for which Ex.B4 is being relied upon is not clear from the record. Admittedly, Ex.B4 is not a document executed by and between the petitioner/plaintiff and the respondents/defendants. Further, as it was produced from the custody of the respondents themselves any obliteration therein, as rightly pointed out by the trial Court, may have been at their own instigation and doing. Verifying the signature of the petitioner/plaintiff under such obliterated portion would therefore serve no purpose. Further, it is not permissible for the respondents/defendants to collect evidence through the process of the Court for the purpose of building up their defence. Viewed from any angle, the order of the trial Court allowing the IA even to a limited extent is not sustainable in law and on facts. The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed setting aside the order dated 25.11.2010 in I.A.No.778 of 2010 in O.S.No.22 of 2008 on the file of the learned V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. ______________ SANJAY KUMAR, J April 20, 2011 DSK