ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the orders passed by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, in I.A.No.1846 of 2014 in O.S.No.250 of 2005 wherein and whereby learned trial Judge dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code and refused to send agreement of sale dated 05.01.2003 to the Government Handwriting Expert for comparison and opinion.

2. The case of the petitioners/plaintiffs in brief before the trial Court is that they filed suit against the respondents for recovery of possession wherein R1 filed written statement by way of counter claim stating that petitioner No.1 executed possessory agreement of sale dated 05.01.2003 in favour of R1. It is the contention of the petitioners that first petitioner never executed any agreement of sale and signatures on the alleged agreement of sale are forged, which brought into existence by R1, which they also mentioned in the rejoinder filed to the counter claim of the respondents. They further submit that in order to prove that the signatures in the alleged agreement of sale dated 05.01.2003 are forged one, they filed petition to send document to Government Forensic Expert for comparison of signatures with admitted signatures of first petitioner. They further stated that they could not file similar petition due to Samaikya Andhra Agitation and previously similar petition filed by them was dismissed for default as their advocate could not attend the Court in view of the agitation. They pray to send the agreement of sale dated 05.01.2003 to Government Handwriting Expert for comparison with admitted signatures of first petitioner for his opinion.

3. The respondents have filed counter before trial Court denying the averments in the affidavit of the first petitioner. It is the contention of the first respondent/D1 that petition filed by the petitioners is highly belated one. He submits that the agreement of sale is dated 05.01.2003, whereas the present petition is filed after lapse of 11 years to compare the admitted signatures which is not permissible under law and petition is filed nine years after filing of the suit and after adducing evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and when the matter is coming up for defendant side evidence.

He prays to dismiss the petition.

4. After hearing both sides, the learned trial Judge dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners on the ground that evidence of an expert can only be considered as corroborative evidence to decide truth or genuineness of disputed sale agreement, it is not only option that is left to the parties to send the document to the expert and it is for the defendants, who made counter claim to prove disputed document of sale agreement. It is also observed that previously similar petition filed by the petitioners was closed for which petitioners have not taken any steps to reopen the same and came up with another petition, which is not maintainable.

5. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned trial Judge, petitioners have preferred the present revision petition stating that the orders passed by the learned trial Judge are contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. They submit that the trial Judge ought to have considered that delay itself cannot be a ground to dismiss the petition seeking prayer to send the disputed document to handwriting expert for his opinion. It is also the contention of revision petitioners that learned trial Judge ought to have taken into consideration that the advocate could not be present before the Court for few occasions due to Samaikya Andhra Agitation that was going on at a particular period if petition is allowed, no prejudice will be caused to the respondents/defendants.

They pray to allow the revision petition.

6. I have heard both sides.

7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners