AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Battu Devanand, J
1) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed aggrieved by the order, dated 17.06.2022 in I.A.No.178 of 2022 in O.S.No.240 of 2013, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Nellore.
2) Heard Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri T.C. Krishnan, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and perused the record.
3) The 1st respondent filed the suit in O.S.No.240 of 2013, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Nellore, for specific performance of agreement of sale in respect of the suit schedule property. The petitioner herein is the 2nd defendant in the said suit.
4) The petitioner has filed I.A.No.178 of 2022 under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act, 1897 R/w Sec.151 of C.P.C. to send Ex.A.1-agreement of sale alleged to have been executed by the petitioner to the Document Division, Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Central Bureau of Investigation, Kendriya Karyalaya Parisar, Block No.4, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110 003, for comparison of the disputed signatures along with the admitted signatures for opinion and to direct the 1st respondent to pay costs of the petition. The said petition was dismissed by the trial Court by order, dated 17.06.2022. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
5) On perusal of the order of the trial Court shows that the reason for dismissal of the petitioner’s application was that the petitioner earlier filed I.A.No.669 of 2018 under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act to send Ex.A.1 (i.e.) the agreement of sale, dated 17.06.2011 for hand writing expert and accordingly, the said petition was allowed and expert opined that the signatures on Ex.A.1 (i.e.) Q.5 to Q.8 were not wrote by admitted signatures of the petitioner (i.e.) S.7 to S.14. It appears, nobody challenged that order. Now, the present petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to send Ex.A.1 again for expert opinion on the ground that prior to she entered into witness box, she sent the same for expert opinion and she again intends to send the same after she examined as witness.
6) Admittedly, with the same prayer the petition filed by the petitioner was allowed and has become final. The expert was not summoned to give evidence on his expert opinion. But, seeking the same relief, the present petition is filed. The suit is of the year 2013. It appears, there is some force in the contention of the 1st respondent that to dragon the suit proceedings, the present petition is filed.
7) Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that filing I.A.No.669 of 2018 at that point of time, it is a premature one as at that time the evidence of plaintiff has not commenced. So, he contends that to cure defect and not to have any problem in future, after completion of evidence the present petition is filed. This Court is not able to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
8) The Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court in a catena of decisions opined that the opinion of an expert with regard to the signature or hand writing in the disputed document is not conclusive, but is only a piece of evidence.
9) The learned counsel for the Respondents placed reliance on the following decisions:
(1) Md. Tajuddin vs. Md. Abdul Rahaman and others MANU/AP/1162/2006.
(2) Chidara Uma Maheswar Rao vs. Methuku Janardhan MANU/AP/1522/2013.
(3) Janachaitanya Housing Ltd., vs. Divya Financiers MANU/AP/0137/2008.
10) The Court is fully agreeing with the ratio laid down in the above cases wherein it is held that the application for sending disputed signature to an expert for comparison with admitted signatures cannot be ordered as a matter of course, but requires to be considered keeping in view of the facts and circumstances in a given case.
11) In the present case as already as per the request of the petitioner in I.A.No.669 of 2018 Ex.A.1 was sent to the expert and the said order has become final and the application filed at present by the petitioner to cure their defect cannot be entertained. As such, in our considered view, the finding of the trial Court that the present petition under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act to send Ex.A.1 again at the stage of further evidence of D.W.2 in the suit for the year 2013 is not maintainable since there are no merits in the petition is correct.
12) Therefore, this Court do not find any jurisdictional error in the order, dated 17.06.2022 in I.A.No.178 of 2022 in O.S.No.240 of 2013, by the Principal District Judge, Nellore warranting interference of this Court.
13) Accordingly, the present Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission.
14) There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.