This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 02.12.2006 passed in I.A.No.1668 of 2006 in O.S.No.293 of 2005 by the Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

The petitioners herein are the defendants in the Original Suit. The respondent herein filed a suit for recovery of Rs.82,399.99ps basing on the promissory note alleged to have been executed by one Jalagadugula Rajamma, W/o. Late Appanna – mother of the petitioners’ herein. The petitioners’ herein, in their written statement, have specifically averred that the respondent herein had forged and fabricated the alleged promissory note and taking advantage of the death of Jalagadugula Rajamma – mother of the petitioners’ herein, got filed a suit into Court to have illegal gain. It is also specifically averred that the said promissory note was rank forged and fabricated document.

3. As seen from the record, it appears that the respondent herein, who was the plaintiff in the suit, filed chief affidavit on 30.06.2006 and the petitioners herein, who were the defendants in the suit, having taken some adjournments, did not cross-examine P.W.1 and the cross-examination of P.W.1 was marked as nil. Subsequently, they filed an application to permit them to cross-examine P.W.1 which was allowed and P.W.1 was cross-examined on 24.08.2006. The chief affidavit of P.W.2 was filed on 17.10.2006 and then I.A.No.1668 of 2006 was filed to send the disputed documents to the handwriting expert for his opinion.

4. The Court below, observing that the application was filed at a belated stage and that whenever application for sending a particular disputed document to an expert is filed, that does not mean that necessarily and automatically the said petition may have to be allowed, dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, this revision is filed.

5. Sri Nimagadda Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioners’ submitted that the impugned order is illegal and that an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, read with Order XXVI Rule 10-A C.P.C. can be filed at any stage of the trial. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of this Court in case between Janachaitanya Housing Limited Vs. Divya Financiers (2008 (3) ALT 409 = AIR 2008 AP 163), wherein, it was observed that “no time could be fixed for filing applications under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for sending the disputed signature or writings to the handwriting expert for comparison and opinion and same shall be left open to the discretion of the Court; for exercising such discretion when exigencies so demand, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case”.

Learned counsel had also relied upon the judgment of this Court in case between Koneti Lakshmi Thulasamma Vs. Gangavaram Veera Raghava Reddy (2002 (1) ALT 180), wherein, it was observed that “it is too early and premature to invoke the provisions of Order 20 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure without laying a foundation during the trial”.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. In spite of service of notice, there was no representation for the respondent.

7. The only point that arises for consideration in this revision is whether the impugned order is sustainable. 8. Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, reads thus:- “When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law or of science or art, or as identity of handwriting [or finger impressions], the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, [or in questions as to identity of handwriting] [or finger impressions] are relevant facts. Such persons are called experts.” 9. Order XXVI Rule 10-A of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows:-

10A. Commission of Scientific Investigation –

(1) Where any question arising in a suit involves any scientific investigation which cannot, in the opinion of the Court, be conveniently conducted before