Judgment?

___________________________________ DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO * THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO + CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1150 of 2016 % 29.09.2023 Between:

# Doosi Rama Rao, S/o. Ranga Rao, Aged about not known, Hindu, Occ: Business, R/o.D.No.12/90, Damaramda Street, Tirumala Chittoor District.

… Petitioner And $ Puttutu Munirathnam Reddy, S/o. Chenga Reddy, aged not known to the Plaintiff, Occ: Business, R/o.D.No.855, Balaji Nagar, Tirumala.

… Respondent ! Counsel for the Petitioner(s): Sri P.C. Reddy Counsel for Respondent(s): Sri N. Bharath Babu

>Head note :

?Cases referred :

1. 2009 (1) ALD 265 2. 2010 (4) ALD 484 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1150 of 2016

ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner against the Order, dated 25.01.2016 passed in I.A.No.1668 of 2015 in O.S No.289 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti (for short “the trial Court”).

2. Heard Sri P.C. Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri N. Bharath Babu, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. The present impugned I.A.No.1668 of 2015 in O.S No.289 of 2008 was filed by the petitioner under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act seeking to send the agreement Ex.A1 along with the admitted signatures of the defendant to the Government handwriting expert, Forensic Science Laboratory to compare his signatures on the Ex.A1 with the admitted signatures of the petitioner are one and same. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent denied his signature on the agreement of Sale dated 24.3.1997 which was marked as Ex.A3 and the scribe and attestor of the document who examined as PWs.2 and 3 were gained over by the defendant and they did not support his case, hence it is just and necessary for him to send the document to the handwriting expert along with admitted signatures of the defendant available on record. Hence, the petitioner filed present I.A before the trial Court. But the trial Court has dismissed the said I.A. on the ground that there are no grounds to allow the same. Challenging the same, the present civil revision petition has been filed.

5. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents made in the affidavit, submits that, the Court below erred in dismissing the IA on the ground that the contemporaneous documents containing the signature of the defendant in ex.A3 pertaining to the year 1997 are not available though the admitted signatures of the defendant are available on the vakalat and written statement. He further submits that the trial Court ought to have seen that the scribe and attestor of the Ex.A3 were examined as PW.2. and PW.3 who did not speak about the execution of Ex.A3 by the defendant and as they were gained over by the defendant and as such it is essential for the petitioner to send the Ex.A3 document for expert opinion to substantiate the defendant had executed Ex.A3 agreement of sale.

6. To support his contentions learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad reported in (i) Velaga Sivarama Krishna v. Velaga Veerabhadra rao and another1, wherein it was held that “whenever a party disputes the signature on a particular document, two remedies are open to him, either to request the Court to compare the signatures or to file an application to send the document to the expert for comparison.”

(ii) In Valladasu Alivelu v. Moguthula Yadaiah and another2, wherein it was held that “Evidence Act 1872 Section 45 – comparison of expert – application for, dismissal of, on ground that plaintiff came up with said application to delay proceedings in main suit, impropriety- petitioner/plaintiff filed petition to send document to handwriting expert on 16.11.2009 …it cannot be said that

1 2009 (1) ALD 265 2 2010(4) ALD 484

petition moved by the petitioner, within two months of marking Ex.B1 is to drag on proceedings in suit