The dismissal of the petition in I.A. No.922 of 2007 in O.S. No.192 of 2006 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Gajwel by the order dated 15-12-2009 led the unsuccessful petitioner/plaintiff to file the present revision.

The petition was filed requesting to obtain the signatures and thumb impressions of the plaintiff and the defendant in the presence of their counsel in open Court and to get them examined and compared by the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad along with the signatures and thumb impressions in the sale deed document No.2505/2005, registered on 25-04-2005. The petitioner/plaintiff contended that the suit property was purchased by him under the document in question from the defendant, the original document having been filed along with the suit. The defendant pleaded the said document to be sham, fabricated and created by impersonating the defendant and by forging his signature. In view of the said defence arose the request of the petitioner/plaintiff.

The defendant resisted the request contending that the alleged sale deed is a fabricated document and even if the registered sale deed is proved to have been executed by him, still the suit is not maintainable. The defendant pleaded that sending of a document for an opinion of the expert is in the discretion of the Court and the Court itself can look into the document.

The trial Court in the impugned order referred to the rival contentions and also referred to two decisions of this Court in coming to a conclusion that the Court itself can look into the disputed signatures and thumb impressions and come to a conclusion by its own knowledge as per Section 73 of the Evidence Act and mere filing of the petition to send the document along with the signatures and thumb impressions of the parties obtained in the Court need not be followed at the first instance. The trial Court also opined that the petition under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not maintainable and dismissed the petition without costs.

In the revision, the petitioner/plaintiff claimed that the purpose for which the petition was filed was not properly appreciated by the trial Court and in the light of the rival contentions of the parties and the refusal of the defendant to execute a rectification deed, sending of the document to an expert is necessary to ascertain whether the finger print/thumb impression of the defendant was affixed on the document in question. The petitioner/plaintiff has no other remedy to probablise the execution of the document by the defendant to have the comprehensive adjudication of the questions in controversy between the parties through proper evidence. Any wrong quoting of a provision of law, under which the petition is filed, should not have led to dismissal of the petition and the trial Court has passed the order without proper application of mind. Hence, the revision petitioner desired that the order be reversed.

Though notice of the revision before admission was sent to the respondent, it was returned as refused and none entered appearance in this revision on behalf of the respondent.

Ms. Lalitha Chouhan, learned counsel representing Sri G. Dhananjai, learned counsel for the revision petitioner is heard.

The point for consideration is whether the document in question and the admitted signatures and thumb impressions of the parties have to be referred for opinion of an expert as requested ?

Point:

The trial Court relied on two decisions of this Court in rejecting the request of the plaintiff and the first of them is Md. Tajuddin v. Md. Abdul Rahaman and others (2008 (1) ALD 573). A learned Judge of this Court was dealing with the request to send the document to expert after more than 15 years of the litigation, more so after the matter was remanded by the High Court to the trial Court in the earlier round of litigation. The learned Judge observed that no document need be sent to an expert on mere filing of an application requestin