Back
2023 Supreme(AP) 1453
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J.
Thota Adinarayana Reddy - Appellant
Versus
Thota Ravindranath Reddy - Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No.242 of 2019
Decided On : 27-09-2023
IMPORTANT POINT
The court can exercise discretion to allow the examination of a disputed document under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, even at a belated stage, if essential for effective adjudication of the dispute.
Headnote:
Indian Evidence Act - Examination of Disputed Document - Section 45 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for cancellation of a registered sale deed, alleging that the defendant had fabricated the deed by forging the thumb impression of the 2nd plaintiff. The plaintiffs sought to send the disputed document for examination by an Expert under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court acknowledged the plaintiffs' laches in filing the petition at a belated stage but recognized the necessity of examining the document to resolve the controversy. The court allowed the petition on heavy costs to compensate the defendant.
Issues: The main issue was the delay in filing the petition under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and the necessity of examining the disputed document despite the plaintiffs' laches.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while laches on the part of the plaintiffs could not be the sole ground for rejecting the request to send the document for examination, the court could exercise discretion to allow the petition even at a belated stage if essential for effective adjudication of the dispute.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The disputed sale deed was ordered to be sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination, with the plaintiffs required to pay costs to the defendant.
ORDER
Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J. - Assailing the order, dated 26-09-2018, passed in I.A.No.910 of 2017 in O.S. No.48 of 2012 on the file of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuram, whereby the petition filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, to send Ex.A5 disputed document to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Red Hills, Hyderabad, for examination by the Expert, to compare the admitted thumb impressions of the 2nd plaintiff with the thumb impressions on Ex.A5, was dismissed, the instant Civil Revision Petition is filed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent.
3. The parties will be referred as they are arrayed in the plaint for the sake of convenience.
4. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 have filed the Suit-O.S.No.48 of 2012 for cancellation of the registered sale deed, which is marked as Ex.A5, dated 05.02.2007. According to the case pleaded by the plaintiffs, the 2nd plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property in question and he has already executed a registered sale deed in respect of the said property in favour of the 1st plaintiff and thereafter, the defendant has fabricated another registered sale deed in respect of the same property by forging the thumb impression of the 2nd plaintiff, as if it was sold by the 2nd plaintiff to the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiffs have filed the Suit for cancellation of the said sale deed.
5. The trial in the Suit commenced. The plaintiffs have adduced their evidence and thereafter, the defendant has adduced his evidence. After closure of the evidence of both the parties, the Suit is posted for hearing arguments. At that stage, the petition under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act was filed by the plaintiffs to send Ex.A5 sale deed to the Expert for examination. The said petition was dismissed on the sole ground that the same was filed at a belated stage and the plaintiffs did not take steps to send the document for examination by the Expert at the earliest point of time.
6. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiffs have preferred the instant Civil Revision Petition.
7. No doubt, there are severe laches on the part of the plaintiffs in filing the petition under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send Ex.A5 disputed document for examination by the Expert.
The plaintiffs ought to have, in fact, taken steps to send Ex.A5 for examination by the Expert at the earliest point of time at the time of adducing evidence by them. They did not take any such steps at the time of adducing their evidence. After closure of the evidence of the defendant and at the fag end of the Suit, they have filed the present application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. Undoubtedly, the plaintiffs are not diligent in prosecuting their Suit. No explanation has been offered for not filing the petition at the earliest point of time and as to why the said petition was filed at the belated stage. Even at the time of hearing the revision petition, when the Court specifically questioned as to what is the reason for not filing the petition at the earliest point of time and for filing a belated petition, no explanation is offered by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners. In fact, there is no answer to the said question. Therefore, undoubtedly, the plaintiffs are guilty of laches and inaction on their part and they are not diligent in prosecuting their Suit.
8. However, that cannot be the sole ground for rejecting the request of the plaintiffs to send Ex.A5 for examination by the Expert. The Suit itself is founded on the ground that Ex.A5 sale deed was fabricated and forged by the defendant as if it was sold by the 2nd plaintiff to him. Therefore, it is inevitable for the plaintiffs to prove that the 2nd plaintiff has not executed the said sale deed and that the thumb impressions on it do not belong to him. Though, the 2nd plaintiff has denied its execution, the defendant still asserts that he has executed the same and that he has put his thu
