Expert opinion applications under the Indian Evidence Act can be filed at any stage, and the trial court should not assess document merits before completing the trial.

ORDER :

J. SREENIVAS RAO, J.

This civil revision petition is filed aggrieved by the orders dated 02.07.2024 passed by the Senior Civil Judge at Kamareddy in I.A.No.292 of 2023 in O.S.No.28 of 2017, invoking the provisions of Article 227 of Constitution of India.

2. The revision petitioner herein is the plaintiff and the respondents are defendants in O.S.No.28 of 2017. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit in O.S.No.28 of 2017 before the trial Court.

3. Brief facts of the case

3.1. The plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.28 of 2017 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Kamareddy seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property and for cancellation of registered agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney document bearing No.2084/2013, dated 12.03.2013 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3. In the said suit plaintiff filed application in I.A.No.292 of 2023 invoking the provisions of Sections 45 and 73 of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT , 1872 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) to send Ex.A-7 i.e. Mutual Agreement dated 13.01.2012 to the Forensic Science Laboratory for opining that the signature on the above said document belongs to defendant No.1 or different person, on the ground that defendant No.1 is disputing the said document. Learned Senior Civil Judge, Kamareddy dismissed the above said application by its order dated 02.07.2024. Thus, the plaintiff filed the present revision petition.

4. Heard Sri D.Madhava Rao, learned counsel, representing Sri D.Raghavendar Rao, learned counsel for the plaintiff and Sri Kowturu Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.

5.1 Learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that on behalf of plaintiff, Ex.A-7 Mutual Agreement dated 13.01.2012 along with other documents were marked, and defendant No.1 denied execution of the said document. During the course of evidence of DW.1, he deposed that he has no objection for sending Ex.A7 for expert’s opinion. He further submits that to prove the said document plaintiff filed application to send Ex.A7 to hand writing expert. The Court below without properly considering the contentions of the plaintiff dismissed the said application on the ground that the plaintiff filed the application at belated stage, though there is no time limit stipulated to file the said application under Section 45 of the Act.

5.2 He further contended that the document Ex.A-7 was already marked as exhibit in the suit and the Court below ought to have decided the application as per the provisions of Section 45 of the Act on the other hand, Court below travelled beyond the scope of the application and held that Ex.A7 is unregistered document and the plaintiff has not taken any steps to pay the stamp duty and the same are contrary to law. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment in Janachaitanya Housing Limited vs. Divya Financiers , 2008(4) ALD 339 , wherein the Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that, there is no time limit for filing application under Section 45 of the Act for sending the disputed signature or writings to hand writing expert, for comparison and the same shall be left open to discretion of Court.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 contended that the plaintiff filed the application at the fag end of the case only to drag on the proceedings, as the evidence of the parties was closed long back and the matter was posted for arguments. The Court below after considering the contentions of the respective parties and after going through the Ex.A-7, has rightly passed th