ORDER :

1. C.R.P. No. 601 of 2023 is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the order, dated 18.10.2022, allowing the petition in I.A. No. 245 of 2022 in O.S. No. 4 of 2015 on the file of the Court of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, filed under section 45 of Indian EVIDENCE ACT , seeking to send the disputed signatures of the petitioner/defendant on the alleged contract of sale, dated 26.03.2013, to the government handwriting expert for comparison of his admitted signatures available on record.

2. C.R.P. No. 602 of 2023 is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the order, dated 18.10.2022, allowing the petition in I.A. No. 269 of 2022 in O.S. No. 4 of 2015 on the file of the same Court, filed under section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to order to send for the documents having signatures of the petitioner, i.e. in Pension Payment Order book from the Sub-treasury Officer, Sub-treasury Office; specimen signatures of the petitioner from the State Bank of India, Main Branch, Machilipatnam, vide A/c. No. 10021533837; documents having specimen signatures of the petitioner from the Indian Overseas Bank, Machlilipatnam, vide A/c. No. 005501000028178 and Thumb Impression Register containing signature of the petitioner in respect of the Will dated 11.12.2018, bearing Doc No. 404/2018 from the Sub-registrar Office, Machilipatnam, to a government handwriting expert for comparison of admitted signatures of the petitioner with the disputed signatures on the suit contract of sale, dated 26.03.2013.

3. The revision petitioner is the respondent/plaintiff. The respondent herein is the petitioner/defendant.

4. The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 26.3.2013. The defendant filed written statement denying the execution of the said agreement of sale at any point of time and specifically averred that it is a rank forged one. Therefore, he filed both the petitions in I.A. No. 245 of 2022 and I.A. No. 269 of 2022 on the same grounds for the same purpose, though the reliefs are slightly different, but connected.

5. The petition was opposed by the plaintiff stating that the proposed documents sought by the petitioner that the will deed document No. 404 of 2018 dated 11.12.2018 and the pension payment orders and the bank account are subsequent to the date of the agreement of sale and there is every chance, likelihood or possibility of intentional disguise of the signatures and also change of fashion and style of the signatures. It is also contended that the proposed documents to be sent for from the bank and the pension payment order books do not disclose the dates beginning and ending of the period which they relate to and that the will is 5 years later to the agreement and not contemporaneous to it. It is further stated that the opinion of an expert is not perfect science and is not substantiate evidence or conclusive proof and requires corroboration and that no purpose would be served by sending the document to an expert, and also that Court can compare the available signatures with the disputed signatures under section 73 of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT . It is also stated that since the agreement was scribed by Sri Simaon and attested by Sri Hanumantha Rao and Sri Murali, there is direct evidence and there is no need to seek opinion of an expert. The respondent stated that these petitions were filed to drag on the proceedings to protract the trial in one way or the other.

6. After hearing both parties, the trial Court allowed the petitions observing that merely because the proposed standard signatures are