The court emphasized that when there is doubt regarding the authenticity of signatures, expert opinion must be sought, and the discretion to send documents for such opinion is based on the specifics of each case.

ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms. Vedula Chitralekha, learned counsel for petitioner Nos.2 to 5 and Mr. Brahmadandi Ramesh, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. G.L. Narsimha Rao, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This revision is filed challenging the order dated 03.05.2024 passed by learned Principal District Judge, Karimnagar in I.A. No.578 of 2024 in O.S. No.171 of 2015 dismissing the petition filed by the petitioners - defendants under Section - 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short ‘Evidence Act’).

3. The petitioners herein are the defendants in O.S. No.171 of 2015, while the respondent is the plaintiff. The respondent herein -plaintiff filed the said suit vide O.S. No.171 of 2015 against the petitioners herein for declaration of title declaring him as owner, possessor over the suit schedule property i.e., land measuring Ac.0.15¼ guntas (1845 square yards) in Survey No.1031, situated at Ramnagar Area, Karimnagar, and cancellation of document bearing No.187 of 2015, dated 16.01.2015 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 5 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and for a consequential perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her possession over the suit schedule property.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in O.S. No.171 of 2015.

5. During pendency of the said suit, the defendants filed an Interlocutory Application vide I.A. No.578 of 2024 in O.S. No.171 of 2015 under Section - 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to send the disputed signature Nos.1 and 2 on Ex.B7 - written statement in O.S. No.741 of 1975 on the file of the District Munsiff at Karimnagar, to hand-writing expert at Central Forensic Laboratory, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad, for his opinion with comparison of admitted signatures from Exs.B20 and B21 - written statement in O.S. No.202 of 1974 on the file of the District Munsiff, Karimnagar and written statement in O.S. No.203 of 1974 on the file of the very same Court, respectively, contending as follows:

i) The grandfather of defendant No.5, namely Awaz Bin Musallam, filed a suit in O.S. No.219 of 1994 against the plaintiff and one Ms. Shameemunisa Begum;

ii) In the said plaint, his grandfather took a categorical plea that defendant No.2 i.e., Hussain Bin Awaz got managed to file written statement on his behalf by forging his signatures in O.S. No.741 of 1975. To prove the said fact, the written statement in O.S. No.741 of 1975 got marked as Ex.B7 may be sent to expert’s opinion for comparison of the signatures with that of admitted signatures of defendant No.5’s grandfather made in the written statements filed in O.S. Nos.202 of 1974 and 203 of 1974.

6. The plaintiff filed counter opposing the said petition contending as follows:

i) The defendants did not challenge the judgment and decree in O.S. No.741 of 1975;

ii) The written statement filed in O.S. No.741 of 1975 cannot be questioned now, and the defendants plaintiff has no locus standi to dispute the same;

iii) The trial Court cannot come to a conclusion regarding genuineness of signatures on written statement or in his pleadings, nor did defendant No.5 depose in his evidence anything about the proceedings in O.S. No.202 of 1974 and 203 of 1974.

7. Vide order dated 03.05.2024 learned trial Court dismissed the aforesaid I.A. No.578 of 2024 observing thus:

i) By filing the petition, the defendants are seeking to examine the signatures of Awaz Bin Mussallam on written statement filed by him on 14.11.1975 in O.S. No.741 of 1975, which signature they are disputing with that of Awaz Bin Mussallam’s other two purported signatures made on 04.09.1974 in two written statements in O.S. No.202 of 1974 and 203 of 1974;

ii) If the purported signature is disputed by one party and is affirmed as correct by another party, such disputed signature can be compared only with admitted specimen signatures;

iii) According