IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the discretion to allow or reject belated applications under Sec. 45 of the Indian Evidence Act lies with the Court, and no hard and fast rule can be applied. Additionally, the judgment clarified that the defendant's disputed signature on the suit promissory note is not comparable with his signatures on the written statement or vakalat executed in the same suit, for expert opinion.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Sri T.Janardhan Rao, learned counsel for the revision-petitioner/defendant and Sri Chilukuri Karthik, learned counsel representing on behalf of Sri V.Nitesh, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff.

2. This civil revision petition has been filed by the revision-petitioner/defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the Order, dated 03. 04.2023, "Rejecting" the I.A.No.367 of 2022 filed by the revision-petitioner/defendant under Sec. 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in O.S.No.260 of 2017 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge"s Court, Chittoor.

3. The respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.No.260 of 2017 for decree, directing the revision-petitioner/defendant to pay the suit claim under promissory note together with future interest at the rate of 24% per annum and consequential reliefs.

4. The revision-petitioner/defendant in the written statement denied borrowing any amount from plaintiff. He also denied execution of any promissory note. He also pleaded that his signatures on the promissory note were forged and fabricated.

5. Both the parties lead evidence. After closure of the evidence, the revision-petitioner filed I.A.No.367 of 2022 under Sec. 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to send the promissory note, dtd. 9/7/2016 (Exhibit A.1) along with his admitted signatures for comparison and opinion of handwriting expert, to the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Mangalagiri of Guntur District.

6. Along with I.A.No.367 of 2022, the revision-petitioner did not file any document which might have contained his admitted signatures.

7. The respondent/plaintiff filed counter to I.A.No.367 of 2022. He inter alia denied the contents of the interlocutory application and the affidavit in support thereof. He further submitted that the Court had the power to compare the signature of the defendant with the admitted signature. It was further submitted that the defendant was in the habit of changing language and type of his signature. He requested to reject the application I.A.No.367 of 2022.

8. The learned Trial Court framed the following point for determination: -

"Whether the petitioner/plaintiff is entitled to send the suit promissory note to the Handwriting Expert, APFSL, Mangalagiri to compare the signatures on Ex.A.1 promissory note dt.9/7/2016 as prayed for?"

9. The learned Trial Court vide Order, dtd. 3/4/2023 "Rejected" the petitioner"s I.A.No.367 of 2022 application.

10. Challenging the Order, dtd. 3/4/2023 the present civil revision-petition has been filed.

11. The learned Trial Court "Rejected" the application, on the grounds, that the application was filed after closure of the evidence of both the parties; and that the revisionpetitioner did not file his admitted contemporary signatures to compare the same with the signatures on the suit promissory note.

12. Sri T.Janardhan Rao, learned counsel for the revisionpetitioner/defendant submits that the grounds of rejection are unsustainable. The application could not be rejected on the ground that it was filed after closure of evidence.

13. He further submits that it could be filed at such a stage, as well. He further submits that the signatures of the revision-petitioner were available in his written statement and the vakalat. So, the Trial Court erred in observing that the admitted contemporary signatures of the petitioner/ defendant, to compare with the disputed signature on the promissory note, was not filed.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied in the cases of Janachaitanya Housing Ltd. v. Divya Financiers,2008 (4) ALD 339 (DB). and Mudi Reddy Tirupathi Reddy v. T.Linga Reddy and Others,2015 (6) ALT 512..

15. Sri Chilukuri Karthik, learned counsel representing Sri V. Nitesh, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, submits that the application was filed belatedly after closure of the evidence of both the parties. So, the Trial Court did not err in rejecting the same.

16. He further submits that the revision-petiti