JUDGMENT :

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by petitioner/plaintiff under article 227 of the Constitution of India against the orders passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa in I.A. No. 1690 of 2017 in O.S. No. 214 of 2005 dated 27.01.2017, wherein and whereby learned Trial Judge dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners/plaintiff under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code refused to send agreement of sale dated 31.01.1996 to the Hand Writing Expert, AP State Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad to compare the signatures and thumb impressions contained in it with the admitted signatures of D5 and thumb impressions of D3 by taking their signatures and thumb impressions in open Court and for submission of the report.

2. The case of the petitioner/plaintiff before the Trial Court in brief is that he filed suit against respondent seeking relief of specific performance of a contract basing on agreement of sale dated 14.03.1996, executed by R1 in his favour who in turn got an agreement of sale in his favour dated 31.01.1996 executed by R2 to R5 in respect of suit schedule property. It is the contention of the petitioner that R2 to R5 have denied the execution of agreement of sale dated 31.01.1996 executed in favour of R1 and they have also denied the execution of agreement of sale dated 14.03.1996 stating that signatures in both documents are forged. He submits that in view of defence taken by the respondents in this suit, it has become necessary for him to file a petition to send agreement of sale dated 31.01.1996 along with hand writing and thumb impressions of R5/R3 to Hand Writing Expert for comparison by taking their thumb impressions and signatures in Open Court.

3. The respondents have filed counter before Trial Court denying averments in the affidavit of the petitioner. It is the contention of the respondents that the petitioner came up with a petition at belated stage though they filed written statement denying their signatures and thumb impressions in the agreement of sale dated 31.01.1996. They submit that Ex.A2, agreement of sale dated 31.01.1996, petitioner is not a party and reasons for seeking expert opinion are not tenable. They prays to dismiss the petition.

4. After hearing both sides, the learned Trial Judge dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner on the ground that there is un explained delay in filing the petition. Though petitioner is aware of the contents of written statement filed by the respondents and observed that petitioner is a stranger to Ex-A2 who cannot seek the relief of sending the document to expert.

5. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Trial Judge, petitioner preferred present Revision Petition stating that orders passed by the learned Trial Judge are illegal and it is material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction vested in it. He submits that Trial Court failed to see that R1 -R5 have denied execution of agreement of sale dated 31.01.1996 due to that burden is on him to prove the said document for which he intended to seek opinion of the Hand Writing Expert which erroneously dismissed by the Trial Court.

6. I have heard learned senior counsel for the petition Mr. C. Prakash Reddy. The learned counsel Mr. Sarathkumar represented for Mr. K. Srinivas, learned counsel for respondents.

7. The learned counsel for revision petitioner would submit that petitioner has filed petition seeking relief of specific performance of a contract in pursuance of agreement of sale dated 14.03.1996 which executed by R1 as he has got agreement of sale from R2 to R5 dated 14.03.1996. He would further submit that R1 to R5 have denied execution of Ex-A2 agreement of sale dated 14.03.1996 and as attester of the document not supporting the contention of the petitioner, to prove the execution of the agreement of sale by R2 to R5 in favour of R1, the petitioner sought opinion of Hand Writing Expert which dismissed by the learned Trial ju