It is not necessary in every case to subject a disputed signature/thumb impression to forensic science examination. The court has the discretion to seek expert opinion based on the individual facts and circumstances of the case.

JUDGMENT

Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. - Under challenge in this writ petition is the order dated 20.04.2019 whereby, the learned Rent Tribunal, Jaipur has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner-non-applicant under Sections 45 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

2. The facts in brief are that the respondent-applicant filed an eviction application in the year 2015 against the petitioner on the grounds of bonafide necessity, default in payment of rent and nuisance. In the reply filed by the petitioner to the application, he relied upon an agreement to sell dated 22.09.2015 allegedly executed by the respondent in his favour and a rent receipt dated 10.03.2003 to show rate of rent to be Rs. 500/- per month instead of Rs. 3,200/- per month as claimed by the respondent. The respondent in his rejoinder filed on 07.04.2016, categorically denied execution of any agreement to sell dated 22.09.2015 in favour of the petitioner as well as execution of the rent receipt dated 10.03.2003 and claimed both to be forged. After closure of the respondent's evidence, the petitioner moved an application under Sections 45 and 73 of the Act of 1872 praying therein to subject the signature and thumb impression alleging the same to be of the respondent on the receipt dated 10.03.2003 and the agreement dated 22.09.2015 respectively to forensic science examination. The learned Rent Tribunal has, vide order impugned herein dated 20.04.2019, dismissed the application.

3. Assailing the order, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned Rent Tribunal erred in dismissing the application on account of delay in as much as he has filed the application immediately after completion of cross examination of the respondent; wherein, he categorically denied his signature/thumb impression on the documents in question. He submits, therefore, the application could not have been held to be suffering from any delay. He further contends that it was incumbent upon the learned Rent Tribunal to have sent the documents in question for forensic science examination once there was positive assertion by him as to signature/thumb impression of the respondent on the documents and its denial by the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments to buttress his submissions:-

(1) Thiruvengada Pillai versus Navaneethammal and Anr., (2008) AIR SC 1541 .

(2) Velaga Sivarama Krishna versus Velaga Veerabhadra Rao and Anr., (2009) AIR A.P. 47 .

(3) Bande Siva Shankara Srinivasa Prasad versus Ravi Surya Prakash Babu and Ors., (2016) AIR Hyderabad 118 (Full Bench).

(4) Guru Govindu Versus Devarapu Venkataramana, (2006) AIR A.P. 371 .

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, supporting the judgment dated 20.04.2019, submitted that he has categorically denied execution of either of the documents in his rejoinder filed way back on 07.04.2016; still, the petitioner filed the application under the Act of 1872 with delay i.e. on 25.03.2019. Relying on judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Hiralal & Ors. Versus Board of Revenue & Ors, (2015) WLC(Raj) 486 UC, learned counsel contended that law does not provide that in each and every case where a plea is taken by one of the parties as to the handwriting/signature/thumb impression being forged or of another party and denied to be so by that other party, resort to Section 45 of the Act of 1872 has to be taken. He, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.

5. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

6. The respondent has categorically denied execution of the agreement to sell dated 22.09.2015 as well as the rent receipt dated 10.03.2003 by him and has claimed both the documents to be forged in the rejoinder filed on 07.04.2016. In these circumstances, the learned trial Court has committed no error in holding the application to be suffering from delay as having been filed after three years from