Pre-trial submission for handwriting expert analysis does not have a fixed timeline under the Indian Evidence Act.

ORDER:

RENUKA YARA, J.

Heard Sri M.Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Though notice is served on the respondent, none appeared on behalf of the respondent. Perused the record.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the impugned order dated 22.03.2024 passed in I.A. No.317 of 2023 in O.S. No.36 of 2019 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Nagarkurnool, wherein, the petition filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, ‘the Act’) for sending the signature of the petitioner/defendant on suit agreement of sale and koulu bhoomi oppandamu along with the admitted signatures to a handwriting expert for analysis, has been dismissed.

3. The brief facts giving rise to the filing of the present revision petition are that the respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S. No. 36 of 2019 for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 09.07.2017 for a direction to the revision petitioner/defendant to execute a registered sale deed with respect to suit schedule property constituting of land admeasuring Ac.1-00 guntas in Survey No. 84/A, agricultural land admeasuring Ac.1-00 guntas in Survey No. 184/AA, total land admeasuring Ac.2-00 guntas, situated at Pulijala village and gram panchayat, Achampet Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District, Telangana State. In the said suit, the revision petitioner/defendant denied the execution of Koulu bhoomi oppandamu dated 25.03.2012, agreement of sale dated 09.07.2017 and receipt dated 09.07.2017. There is a dispute about the very signature on the documents relied upon by the respondent/plaintiff who is seeking specific performance of agreement of sale dated 09.07.2017. Since there is a dispute, the revision petitioner against whom relief sought has filed the I.A. under the revision petition to send the disputed signatures along with his admitted signatures for comparison by a handwriting expert and the said I.A. was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is preferred.

4. In the grounds of the revision, the revision petitioner pleaded that the respondent/plaintiff is the ex-husband of his sister, obtained divorce in the year 2014 and created illegal claim over the suit schedule property. The revision petitioner is a Government doctor and taking advantage of the same, a illegal tenancy agreement dated 25.03.2012 and agreement of sale dated 09.07.2017 are created and on the basis of the said forged documents, the suit was filed for specific performance. It is submitted that the main dispute is whether the lease agreement i.e., Koulu bhoomi oppandamu dated 25.03.2012 and agreement of sale dated 09.07.2017 are valid and therefore, it is proper to refer the documents to the expert. The burden of proof to prove forgery of the signatures on the agreement of sale, Koulu bhoomi oppandamu and receipts is on the revision petitioner and therefore, the trial Court ought to have allowed the petition i.e., I.A. No. 317 of 2023 but has erroneously dismissed the same.

5. During the arguments, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the suit in O.S. No. 36 of 2019 for specific performance is filed based on forged and fabricated documents. Therefore, there is a need to prove that the signatures on the agreement of sale, receipts and the Koulu bhoomi oppandamu are not made by the revision petitioner. In order to prove the forgery and to bringforth the truth before the Court, the petition i.e., I.A. No. 317 of 2023 was filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, but the relief has been denied on the mistaken premises that the burden of proof always lies on the plaintiff/respondent only when the plaintiff/respondent proves his case, the onus of proof shifts to the shoulders of the defendant/revision petitioner. It is held t