The petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.16 of 2002 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Medak. The respondents are the plaintiffs in the above suit filed for specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 05.02.1993 said to be executed by the defendants.

2) During pendency of the suit, the defendants filed I.A.No.554 of 2006 under Sections 45 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act requesting the Court to send the documents, covered by Exs.A.6, A.8 and A.9, to the handwriting expert for comparison with the admitted signatures of the first defendant on Ex.A.1 to A.5 and other documents and give an opinion. The lower Court dismissed the lower Court while dismissing the said application observed that the earlier application, covered by I.A.No.454 of 2006, under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for comparison of the signatures on the documents. Therefore, the petitioners again filed the present I.A. to send the documents to the handwriting expert to compare the signatures with the admitted signatures and to give an opinion. It was further observed that in the absence of opinion of the expert, it is not appropriate for the Court to make any comparison as requested by the petitioners especially when the petitioners themselves admitted certain documents. It was further observed that instead of the petitioners preferring a revision or appeal against the order in I.A.No.454 of 2006 dated 25.09.2006, the petitioners again filed the present I.A. and it is only to drag on the matter and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.

3) The petitioners, being aggrieved by the order of the lower Court dated 12.12.2006 in I.A.No.554 of 2006, preferred the present revision contending that when it is the specific plea of the defendants that they did not execute Exs.A.6, A8 and A.9 documents and they were forged for the purpose of saving the limitation, it is essential to send the documents to the expert for comparison.

4) The earlier petition was dismissed by the lower court with an observation that the Court can compare the signatures. Observing that in the absence of expert opinion, it is not desirable for the Court to compare the signatures dismissed the present petition.

5) In the earlier application, the lower Court further observed that the petitioners filed the passport of the year 1999, ration card of the year 2006, agreement dated 08.01.1999 and some cash receipts of State Bank of Hyderabad. It was further observed that the signatures of those documents are not of the year 2006 and ration card does not relate to petitioners. In the suit, the entire evidence of the plaintiffs was over and the matter was coming up for further evidence of the defendants, therefore, the Court is of the view that there is no necessity to send Exs.A.6, A.8 and A.9 documents to expert for comparison and report regarding his opinion.

6) Whenever the signature on the document is disputed, the party who is disputing the signature may make an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act to send the document to the expert for comparison. Normally, the Courts are inclined to allow the petition to send the documents so that the opinion of the expert would help the Court to come to a right conclusion regarding the genuineness of the document. The lower Court on the ground dismissed the earlier application that the documents filed by petitioners, which contain the admitted signatures, do not belong to the year 2006. The defendants on 05.02.1993 executed the agreement of sale, covered by Ex.A.1. The receipts, covered by Ex.A.2 to A.5, were also executed on 05.03.1993 17.12.1993, 06.05.1993, 23.07.1993 and 19.08.1993. The disputed document is said to be a document regarding to the extension of time by taking Rs.25,000/- on 08.11.2001, in addition to the amount already received towards sale consideration. The agreement of sale was executed for the sale of a share constructed in the area of 29.45 square yards at Medak town.

7) The contention of the plainti