IMPORTANT POINT
Expert opinions on signatures require reliable, contemporaneous documents for comparison; belated applications lack merit.

ORDER :

B.S. Bhanumathi, J.

1. This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order, dated 06.09.2022, dismissing the petition in I.A.No.289 of 2022 in O.S.No.110 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Tanuku, filed by the defendants 1 & 2 (defendant No.1 is shown as found missing since 27.10.2014) under Order XXVI Rule 10A CPC read with Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to send the agreement of sale, dated 13.02.2014, marked as exhibit A1 to a handwriting expert with her admitted signatures for opinion.

2. Heard Sri N. A. Ramachandra Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants and Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarty, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff.

3. (a) The 2nd defendant has sworn the affidavit in support of the petition stating that her husband/1st defendant had left the home on 27.10.2014 and since then, he is found missing and his whereabouts are not known and that the suit agreement of sale is forged and fabricated and that she has habit of signing as "Rellu Naga Lakshmi"; but not as "Rellu Sri Naga Lakshmi".

(b) The petition was opposed by filing counter of the respondent/ plaintiff denying the averments and further stating that the legal notices, dated 16.02.2015, sent by the plaintiff to the defendants prior to filing of the suit were refused by the defendants knowing fully well about execution of the agreement of sale and the address given in the suit for the defendants as well as the address to which the notices were sent are one and the same. It is further stated that the 1st defendant was set ex parte and the 2nd defendant alone filed the written statement, however, the petition was filed by both the defendants and thus, it is clear that they have been living together but stage managed the things in the suit. It is also contended that when plea of forgery was taken in the written statement, the cross-examination of PWs 1 & 2 was held differently from the pleadings in the written statement and also the relief of opinion of an expert is sought only in relation to signatures whereas the thumb mark of the 1st defendant is not sought to be examined. It is further contended that there is no specific denial as to her name as not "Rellu Sri Naga Lakshmi" and that she has habit of signing as "Rellu Naga Lakshmi" and that may be due to inadvertence or innocence and with a dishonest pre- planning, the signature could be made otherwise. It is further contended that an opinion of an expert should not be sought on the basis of surmises and conjectures and moreover, the petition is filed at a belated stage without having any prima facie merit or substance.

4. After hearing both parties, the petition was dismissed by the trial Court mainly on the grounds that the signatures obtained in open Court which are on suit summons, vakalat and written statement would be later in point of time than the suit agreement of sale and so, they are not safe to take as specimen signatures for comparison with the disputed signature and that no document with her signatures contemporary to the agreement were not filed and moreover, there is a thumb mark of her husband, i.e., the 1st defendant also on the document which is not sought to be examined. It is further observed that the petition was filed at a belated stage of further evidence.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the grounds stated in the petition and contended that an opportunity can be given to prove that the suit agreement of sale is forged.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the trial Court has given valid reasons for dismissing the petition and there is no reason to interfere with the same.

7. Perused the record.

8. In Byalla Devadas Vs. Sivapuram Rama Yogeswara Rao 2022 Live Law (AP) 53, at para No.9, this Court observed as follows:

"9. At this juncture, it is appropriate to refer to the orders passed by a learned Judge in P. Padmanabhaiah v.