Since the issue involved in both the petitions and parties are one and the same, they are being heard together and disposed of by way of this Common Order.

2. CRP No.5550 of 2017

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff against order dated 11.09.2017 in I.A.No.605 of 2016 in O.S.No.200 of 2005 wherein and whereby the Court below dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) CPC to condone the delay for filing document No.1 i.e., the handwriting expert C.S.R.Murthy opinion and enclosed signatures marked Exs.A1-12, S1-S6 and the red enclosed signatures similarly marked Q1, Q6, S1, S11 and D1 and D2 are marked as Exhibits on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff.

3. CRP No.5561 of 2017

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff against order dated 11.09.2017 in I.A.No.604 of 2016 in O.S.No.200 of 2005 wherein and whereby the Court below dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order 16 Rules 1 to 4 CPC to issue summons to the witness Sri C.S.R.Murthy, Hand Writing Expert (Diploma of the American Board of Forensic Examiners) to give evidence on his behalf.

4. Heard Sri V.V.Raghavan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Y.Ramathirtha, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that there is no need to send only original documents for obtaining opinion of the handwriting expert as there is every likelihood of the original being lost. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment reported in Doraiswamy Gounder v. Paravammal, AIR 1976 Madras 66. He submits that no permission is required under Section 45 of Evidence Act, 1872 (for short the Act) or Order 26 Rule 10-A of CPC for sending the documents for opinion of handwriting expert. He further submits that petitioner obtained certified copies of the admitted signatures of the respondents/defendants, which are available on record in the suit before the Court below and sought opinion from the handwriting expert. He submits that the Court can issue summons to the handwriting expert and also receive the report submitted by him and that there is nothing wrong in allowing the same. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of this Court in Rytu Depot, Draksharama, East Godavari District v. Sri Rajyalakshmi Agencies, Ramachandrapuram, 2013 (5) ALD 394. He submits that the Court below, without considering the said aspects, erroneously dismissed both the applications filed by the petitioner.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents while reiterating the averments in the counter affidavit, submits that when the Court below had already sent the disputed documents for expert opinion and the expert gave opinion, no steps were taken by the petitioner against the said report filed by the first expert. He submits that the petitioner did not obtain prior permission from the Court for sending the certified copies of documents to the handwriting expert and that no notice was issued to the respondents before sending the documents to the handwriting expert. He submits that original documents were not sent for expert opinion and only certified copy of Ex.A1 was sent to the private handwriting expert and that the petitioner is not entitled to examine the private handwriting expert.

7. Before considering the rival contentions of both the parties, it is necessary to extract relevant provisions of Evidence Act.

45. Opinion of Experts: When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law or of science or art, or as to 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.

As per the aforesaid provision, there is no bar for the Court at any stage of the case to obtain opinion of the ex