The court upheld the discretion to seek expert opinion at any stage but emphasized that such applications must be made in good faith and without undue delay to prevent vexatious prolongation of proceedings.

ORDER:

This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 24.11.2023 dismissing the petition in I.A.No.372 of 2021 in O.S.No.260 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the VII Additional District Judge, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District filed by the defendant under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send the letter of agreement dated 20.02.2008 marked as Ex.A1 to the government handwriting expert along with the document marked as Ex.D4 containing two signatures of the petitioner.

2. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of the amount of Rs.34,07,822/- together with interest and costs of the suit, basing on Ex.A1. The suit was resisted by the defendant by filing a written statement denying the suit claim and further stating that the defendant was appointed by the plaintiff as a site supervisor cum agent to look after the suit contract work at Sullurupet and Naidupet, that in respect of the defendant, he had given plaintiff a letter dated 20.02.2008 on his letterhead to the Superintending Engineer, stating that the defendant was authorized by the plaintiff to work as a site supervisor and agent in respect of the contract work awarded to him on 18.02.2008, and the plaintiff had also signed the said letter, and the defendant attested the same, and that the office copy of the said letter with the endorsement of receipt by the Junior Engineer works, Sullurpet, Railway department by name Ganeshan is available with the defendant, and original of the said letter dated 20.02.2008 is available with the department. The defendant further pleaded that the plaintiff started blackmailing the defendant stating that the plaintiff was in custody of blank cheques of Syndicate Bank, Sullurpet Branch, blank promissory notes, and letterheads with the signatures of the defendant, and that he would make use of the same to squeeze money from the defendant. The defendant further submitted that sometimes he issued blank promissory notes to the plaintiff to issue the same to the material suppliers and blank letterheads to seek extension of currency period by the railway department, as such, they might be available with the plaintiff, and thereafter the defendant gave a complaint dated 09.04.2012 to the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Egmore, Chennai, requesting to take appropriate action against the plaintiff, whereupon the police called the plaintiff to the police station for inquiry, and therefore the plaintiff filed the suit forging the signatures of the defendant on the letterheads created. The other pleaded facts which are not relevant for the purpose of adjudication of this petition are not noted here.

3. Under those circumstances, the defendant filed I.A.No.372 of 2023 with the above said relief.

4. The petition was opposed by the plaintiff by filing a counter denying the contents of the petition and further stating that the Court can examine the disputed signatures as per under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and there is no need to seek the opinion of an expert.

5. After hearing both parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition observing that the signatures on Ex.B4 (sic Ex.D4) which were admitted by the defendant are clearly visible for comparison and that since the suit was instituted in the year 2012 and the comparison of the disputed signatures can be made by the Court by exercising jurisdiction under Section 73 the Act, there is no need to grant relief.

6. Feeling aggrieved by the order, this revision petition is filed.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no bar in filing the petition at the stage of the arguments as the petitioner has to prove the defence taken in the written statement. The petitioner/defendant has taken the plea of forgery and denied the signature on exhibit A1.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the following decisions:

(i) Janachaitanya Housing Ltd. Vs. Divya Financiers, it was held , AIR 2008 AP 163 at par