The Court held that there is no time limit for filing applications under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and that the decision to refer documents for expert opinion is left to the discretion of the Court, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case.

ORDER :

The instant Civil Revision Petition has been preferred against the order dated 15.11.2021 passed in I.A.No.234 of 2020 in O.S.No.39 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Giddalur, Prakasam District.

2. Heard Mr.Nagaraju Naguru, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Turaga Sai Surya, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. The petitioner herein is defendant in the above referred suit. The respondent/plaintiff filed the said suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,71,600/- with future interest and costs. The petitioner/defendant filed written statement, inter alia, contending that the suit promissory note is forged document and his signatures were forged. After examination of P.Ws 1 and 2 on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff, the matter was posted for defendant’s evidence on 25.07.2019. At that stage, the petitioner filed I.A.No.234 of 2020 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to send Ex.A.1 promissory note to the handwriting expert by receiving specimen writings in the four promissory notes which are annexed to the said application and to receive his specimen signatures in the open Court along with the vakalatnama and written statement for comparison. The respondent/plaintiff filed counter and opposed the said application. After considering the matter, the learned Trial Court dismissed the said application. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the order under revision contending, inter alia, that the view taken by the learned Trial Court that the application is filed only to drag on the proceedings is un-sustainable. He submits that the matter was posted for defendant’s evidence on 25.07.2019 and the application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act was filed on 06.01.2020 and therefore the Trial Court is not correct in coming to a conclusion that the I.A is filed only to drag on the proceedings. He also submits that the view of the learned Trial Court that the petitioner/defendant ought to have taken steps before commencement of Trial or prior thereto is untenable and contrary to the well settled principles of Law. While submitting that the petitioner/defendant has taken a specific stand in the written statement that the suit promissory note is forged, the learned counsel further contends that the application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act can be made at any stage. The learned counsel placing reliance on the judgment of a learned Judge in Gulam Ghouse and Ors., v. Madarse Jeelania Shama-Ul-Uloom, 2007 (4) ALT 432 submits that in view of the plea taken in the written statement, the learned Trial Court ought to have sent the suit promissory note for the opinion of expert as it would assist the Court in effective adjudication of the “lis”. Contending so, the learned counsel seeks to set aside the order passed by the learned Trial Court.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent supported the order under revision inter alia stating that the conduct of the petitioner/defendant disentitles him for securing the relief sought for. He contends that though the petitioner/defendant has taken a plea of forgery, he has not chosen to file any application seeking opinion of the expert with reference to suit promissory note at the earliest point of time. He submits that after closure of the evidence of P.W.2-the attestor of suit promissory note, who deposed that the petitioner/defendant himself scribed the suit promissory note, the I.A in question was filed at a belated stage to get over the same. While submitting that there are no bonafides in the application made by the petitioner/defendant, the learned counsel submits that the order under revision is well considered and warrants no interference by this Court. The counsel also places reliance on the orders passed by a learned Judge in Dara Srinivasa Rao v. Nallamilli Venkata Reddy, 2017 (1) ALT 710 and submits that the revision petition is liable to be dismiss