ORDER :

The present Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated 26.04.2022 passed in I.A. No. 123 of 2018 in O.S. No. 116 of 2017 by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Mahabubnagar (hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Court’), wherein the Court refused to send the agreement of sale dated 09.02.2015 containing the disputed signatures of the Petitioner herein for Expert Opinion/FSL Report under Section - 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1872’) for comparison with the admitted signatures of the Petitioner herein on the Vakalat and written statement.

2. Heard Mr. R. Dheeraj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. It is mentioned in the cause title that respondent Nos.3 to 5 are not necessary parties to the revision.

3. Facts of the case

(i) Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the original plaintiffs who have filed O.S. No. 116 of 2017 seeking specific performance of agreement of sale dated 09.02.2015 against the petitioner herein (Defendant No.1 in the suit). According to respondent Nos.1 and 2, they are the legal heirs of one T. Kishan.

(ii) Allegedly, the petitioner herein along with defendant Nos.2, 3 and 4 agreed to sell land admeasuring Acs. 55-16 Guntas, situated at Manikonda Village of Kolikonda Mandal, presently merged with Mahbubnagar Mandal (hereinafter ‘subject property’) for a total sale consideration of Rs.83,10,000/- to the said T. Kishan. The petitioner herein allegedly received Rs.50,00,000/- as part of advance payment from T. Kishan and executed an agreement of sale dated 09.02.2015 in his favour. It is relevant to note that the said agreement of sale was executed on a non-judicial stamp paper bearing No.B 355988. The balance amount of Rs.33,10,000/- was agreed to be paid on execution of sale deed, demarcation of lands and after obtaining pattadar pass books.

(iii) According to respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, T. Kishan was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, but the petitioner herein failed to execute a sale deed in respect of the subject property. The said T. Kishan passed away on 09.05.2016 leaving behind respondent Nos.1 and 2. According to respondents Nos.1 and 2, despite continuous requests, the petitioner herein did not execute a sale deed. Therefore, respondent No.1 got issued legal notices dated 17.06.2017 and 23.08.2017 demanding the petitioner herein to execute a sale deed in respect of the subject property. As the petitioner herein along with other defendants failed to execute the sale deed, respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed O.S. No.116 of 2017 seeking specific performance of agreement of sale dated 09.02.2015.

(iv) The petitioner herein along with other defendants denied the allegations of respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein and contended that they have not executed the agreement of sale dated 09.02.2015 and the signatures of the petitioner herein on the said agreement of sale were forged.

(v) While the said suit was pending, the petitioner herein filed I.A. No.123 of 2018 to send the agreement of sale dated 09.02.2015 to an Expert under Section - 45 of the Act, 1872 for comparison of the disputed signatures with the admitted signatures of the petitioner herein on the Vakalat and written statement.

(vi) The trial Court vide order dated 26.04.2022 dismissed the said I.A. 123 of 2018 on the ground that the petitioner herein had not filed any registered documents containing his signature which are prior in time to the disputed signatures.

(vii) Further, the trial Court noted that the signatures of the petitioner herein on the Vakalat and the written statement cannot be compared as there is every possibility that the petitioner could have changed his signature on the Vakalat and written statement.

(viii) Therefore, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the trial Court.

4. Contentions of the petitioner :

i. To prove the fraud