The allowance of pre-trial applications to send disputed documents for Expert opinion is improper and constitutes a material irregularity.

ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the Order in IA.No.96 of 2023 in IA.No.480 of 2022 in OS.No.565 of 2022, dated 17.03.2023 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Husband, where under the application filed by the sole respondent under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act came to be allowed.

2. Petitioner is the respondent-plaintiff and the respondent is the petitioner-defendant in IA.No.96 of 2023.

3.1. Respondent-petitioner has filed IA.No.96 of 2023 in IA.No.480 of 2022 in OS.No.565 of 2022 to send the alleged Agreement of Sale, dated 25.06.2022 with the admitted specimen signatures along with written statement, counter, and vakalath to the Handwriting Expert.

3.2. It is stated in the affidavit that the alleged Agreement of Sale, dated 25.06.2022 is not executed by her (respondent herein) at any point of time in favour of the respondent therein (petitioner herein).

4. Petitioner-respondent has filed her counter in the above said I.A. and contended that the sole evidence of Handwriting Expert is not normally sufficient and the comparison of signatures in the disputed document is to be sent at the commencement of the trial. The deposition of the witnesses is the best evidence than the Expert opinion and the signatures of the person may vary from time to time due to age and health factors, Expert opinion is not conclusive evidence. Petitioner (respondent herein) cleverly sketched to escape from the execution of registered sale deed and it clearly reveals that she may change her writing pattern only to misguide the Court by putting wrong signatures on vakalath, written statement only to create an FSL report in her favour and prayed to dismiss the application.

5. The learned trial Court after going through the material on record has allowed IA.No.96 of 2023 holding that no prejudice will be caused to the respondent (petitioner herein) and it is a fit case to allow the application as prayed for, which is impugned in the CRP.

6.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner-respondent submits that the learned trial Court has committed material irregularity in allowing the application filed by the respondent-petitioner under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act and the Court below failed to see that suit is filed for specific performance of contract and that the respondent-petitioner offered to sell the suit schedule property for a total sale consideration of Rs.11 Lakhs, on the same day petitioner-respondent has paid the total sale consideration and the respondent-petitioner has delivered the possession.

6.2. The learned trial Court failed to see that IA.No.96 of 2023 came to be filed by the respondent-petitioner after receiving notice in the suit alleging that Agreement of Sale, dated 25.06.2022 is not executed by her at any point of time. The learned trial Court failed to answer the contentions raised by the petitioner-respondent. Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on the decisions in the cases of (1) J.L. Babu Vs. Gowri Shankar and another , 2009 (5) ALT 415 (S.B.), (2) Lakkapamula Rani Vs. Manda Batasari , CRP No. 1361 of 2021 dated 23.03.2022 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi (3) Byalla Devadas Vs. Sivapuram Rama Yogeswara Rao , http://indiankanoon.org/doc/91787415, (4) P. Padmanabhaiah Vs. G. Srinivasa Rao , (2017) 1 ALT 710 .

7.1. Learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner contended that the Agreement of Sale, dated 25.06.2022 is a fabricated document and that the petitioner-respondent is none other than the daughter-in-law of the respondent-petitioner and her counsel is V.Kumaraswamy who is the son of the respondent-petitioner. As the respondent-petitioner is a senior citizen contesting the suit for specific performance filed by her daughter-in-law (petitioner herein) and if there is a delay in collecting the specimen signatures in open Court, if she d