Referring a document to an expert at the appellate stage amounts to adducing additional evidence. In the absence of any explanation covered under Order XLI Rule 27 (a) (aa) and (b) of CPC the parties cannot be permitted to adduce additional evidence and in the absence of appropriate application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC.

ORDER :

M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.

1. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the Order in I.A. No. 1551 of 2014 in A.S. No. 174 of 2006, dated 19.09.2014 passed by the I Additional District Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District allowing the application filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1950 to refer the document to the expert for his examination and opinion.

2. The respondents herein are the plaintiffs in the suit, who filed the suit for specific performance on the basis of agreement of sale and the petitioners herein, being the defendants contested the suit by raising a specific plea that the document sued upon i.e., agreement of sale, is the forged document. The trial Court after full-fledged trial upheld the contention of the petitioners and dismissed the suit while holding that the document is forged one. However, the respondents filed an appeal in A.S. No. 174 of 2006 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District and when the appeal was posted for final hearing, the respondents herein filed an application in I.A. No. 1551 of 2014 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1950 to refer the disputed document to the expert for his examination and opinion to establish that the document sued upon is genuine.

3. The said application was allowed by the appellate Court and passed the Order which is now under challenge before this Court, on the ground that referring the document to an expert for his examination and opinion amounts to adducing of additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC and in the absence of satisfying the requirements under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, the document cannot be referred to the expert only on the basis of application filed under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, without any application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC and requested to set aside the Order impugned in this Civil Revision Petition.

4. During the course of hearing, Sri S. Jagajjivanram, learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the contentions urged in the petition, while placing reliance on the judgment of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in the case of Korivi Chinna Poli Reddy and another v. Dadiboina Guraiah 2010 (5) ALT 798 on the strength of the principle laid in the above judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioners requested to set aside the Order impugned as referring the document by exercising the power under Section 45 of Evidence Act to an expert for opinion amounts to adducing of additional evidence.

5. The respondents' counsel did not appear in the video conferencing and there was no representation on behalf of the respondents.

6. Considering the rival contentions of the petitioners and the Order impugned in the Revision Petition, the sole point that arose for consideration is that:-

Whether the disputed document can be referred to an expert for his examination and opinion at the stage of appeal without any application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, if not, whether the Order impugned in the present Revision Petition be sustained?

7. Undisputedly, the suit was filed for specific performance of sale agreement, dated 16.10.1993. The execution of it was denied as it was forged document. In the trial Court, the petitioners' contention was upheld and the suit was dismissed on 13.05.2003. The petitioners i.e., the respondents herein did not take any steps during pendency of the suit, though specific plea of forgery was raised before the trial Court, but went on trial of the suit, obtained a decree of dismissal on 13.05.2003.

8. Aggrieved by the said Order an appeal is preferred in the year 2006, but filed an application in I.A. No. 1551 of 2014 i.e., after 8 years from the date of filing appeal under Section 45 of the Evidence Act to refer the disputed document to the expert for his examination and opinion.

9. Filing an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act which is a substantial law, is an illegality. In fact, there is a specific