ORDER :

The present Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the Orders passed in I.A.No.268 of 2021 in O.S.No.244 of 2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid, Krishna District.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Ch.B.R.P. Sekhar and the learned counsel for the respondent Smt.Santhi Sree Vallabhaneni.

3. The petitioner herein is the defendant in the above referred suit. The respondent/plaintiff filed the above said suit seeking Specific Performance of an Agreement of Sale dated 20.01.2014 and for other reliefs. In the written statement a plea was taken that the Agreement of Sale was fabricated by forging the signatures of the petitioner/defendant and her husband. After the completion of the respondent’s/plaintiff’s arguments in the said suit and when the matter is coming up for petitioner’s/defendant’s arguments, I.A.No.268 of 2021 was filed by the petitioner/defendant under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act R/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking a direction to send Ex.A.1 Agreement of Sale dated 20.01.2014 and the papers on which the signatures of the petitioner/defendant would be taken in open Court and other documents containing her signatures i.e., the suit summons, vakalat, postal acknowledgement, written statement etc., to the Government Handwriting Expert for comparison of the said signatures and to give expert’s opinion. The said application was resisted by the respondent/plaintiff by filing a counter. The learned Senior Civil Judge after considering the matter, by an order dated 07.10.2021 dismissed the said application. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contended that the alleged Agreement of Sale was executed on 20.01.2014 and the suit was filed on 21.07.2014 and thereafter written statement was immediately filed on 05.09.2014. He submits that a specific plea was taken in the written statement that the alleged Agreement of Sale is a forged document, not executed by the petitioner/defendant. He submits that in the light of the said categorical stand of defence, it is all the more appropriate to refer the alleged Agreement of Sale for expert’s opinion, so that the truth would come out. He submits that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent/plaintiff as the signatures would be taken in the open Court and the same would be sent along with the other documents which are already available before the Court i.e., suit summons, vakalat, written statement, postal acknowledgements for comparison to the expert. He further submits that the report of the expert on comparing the signatures on the documents referred to him would aid the Court in evaluation of evidence and in the event of any adverse opinion, it would be open to the aggrieved party to challenge the same. He submits that the learned Senior Civil Judge instead of considering the application in the correct perspective went wrong in dismissing the same, on the ground that the same was not filed at an appropriate stage, but belatedly after completion of the arguments of the respondent/plaintiff, which is totally unsustainable. He submits that it is settled Law that an application seeking expert’s opinion under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act can be filed at any stage of the Trial, even after conclusion of the arguments and ignoring the said aspect, the learned Trial Court had dismissed the I.A, which constitutes failure to exercise jurisdiction vested in it. He submits that mere delay cannot be a ground for rejecting the application seeking expert’s opinion and the learned Trial Court, in the event was of the opinion that there was delay, the same should have been condoned by imposing costs. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel seeks setting aside of the Order of the learned Trial Court and prays for allowing the Civil Revision Petition.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff refuted the submissions made o