This Civil Revision Petition arises out of Order, dated 29-08-2011, in IA.No.1711 of 2010 in OS.No.1401 of 2007, on the file of the Court of the learned V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. I have heard Sri P.Ramachandran, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record.

3. The petitioner is defendant No.1 in OS.No.1401 of 2007 filed by respondent No.1 for specific performance of an agreement of sale. The petitioner has been resisting the suit mainly on the plea that respondent No.1/plaintiff has forged his signature on the agreement of sale. The petitioner has earlier filed IA.No.1011 of 2008 with a request to send the disputed signatures for comparison with his admitted signatures, to the handwriting expert for his opinion. The said application was allowed by the Court below. Respondent No.1 filed CRP.No.2199 of 2009 before this Court against the said order. The said CRP was allowed by this Court by setting aside the order of the lower Court, however, giving liberty to the petitioner to move the lower Court at appropriate stage after completion of trial if it is felt that such comparison is necessary. Taking a cue from those observations, the petitioner filed IA.No.1711 of 2010 before the lower Court after completion of the trial and at the stage of the arguments. The lower Court rejected the said application by opining that, in view of the provisions of Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short ‘the Act’), the Court itself can undertake the exercise of comparison of the signatures and that there is no necessity of sending the signatures for the opinion of the handwriting expert.

4. At the hearing, Sri P.Ramachandran, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has strenuously contended that the Court below has committed a serious error in rejecting the petitioner’s application. He also submitted that this Court has given liberty to the petitioner to move the lower Court after completion of trial for sending the disputed signatures for the opinion of the handwriting expert and that the lower Court has failed to follow the observations of this Court.

5. Under Section 73 of the Act, the Court is empowered to ascertain whether a signature, handwriting or seal is that of the person, by whom it purports to have been written or made, and compare any signature, writing or seal, admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court, to have been written or made by that person with the one, which is to be proved. This provision, thus, enables the Court to undertake the exercise of comparison of the signature, writing or seal without need for sending the same to the opinion of the handwriting expert. Section 45 of the Act recognized the opinions of the experts in handwriting or finger impressions as relevant facts. In my opinion, Section 45 does not cast an obligation on the Courts to send a disputed document for expert’s opinion as a matter of course. It is only when the Court forms an opinion that, having regard to the facts of the particular case, it is necessary for ascertaining the opinion of the expert, that it can send the handwriting or finger impression for an expert opinion. Therefore, if the Court below, having regard to the facts of the case, exercises its discretion not to send the document for the opinion of the expert, the party has no right to insist that such document should be sent for the opinion of the expert. The judgment in Thumu Srikanth vs. Akula Babu (2010 (5) ALD 795), on which the learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance, does not advance the case of the petitioner because in that case this Court has opined that, having regard to the fact that the thumb impression as well as signature were disputed, it is appropriate that the same should have been sent for the opinion of the expert. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in this regard and the Court has to exercise its discretion in a sound and rational manner having regard to the facts involved in the