COMMON ORDER:

The petitioner herein had filed O.S.No.12 of 2018 in the Court of V Additional District Judge, Allagadda, Kurnool District, against the respondent herein for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 22.08.2014. The respondent, in his written statement, denied the execution of the said agreement of sale and also disputed the signatures contained in the said agreement of sale.

2. In the course of trial, at the stage when the evidence of the defendant was being recorded, the petitioner moved I.A.No.591 of 2021 and I.A.No.592 of 2021. In I.A.No.591 of 2021 the petitioner sought a direction to the respondent to produce the original of a registered document dated 01.12.2012 for comparison of signatures of the respondent in that document with the signatures of the respondent in the agreement of sale dated 22.08.2014 and for sending the same to the Government Forensic Laboratory, Vijayawada, for comparison. In I.A.No.592 of 2021 the petitioner sought a direction for sending the agreement of sale dated 22.08.2014 to the Government Forensic Laboratory, Vijayawada, along with the signatures of the respondent on the Vakalath, Written Statement and registered document dated 01.12.2012 to the Government Forensic Laboratory, Vijayawada, for comparison of signatures. Both these applications were dismissed by the trial Court on 24.11.2021. Aggrieved by the said orders of dismissal, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present revision petitions.

3. As both the revision petitions are arising between the same parties and out of the same issue, they are being disposed of by way of this common order.

4. The case of the respondent before the trial Court was that the registered document dated 01.12.2012 was deposited with the Andhra Bank as security to the loan taken by the respondent and as such the respondent would not be able to produce the said document. The trial Court took the view that the petitioner had not taken any steps for sending the documents for comparison from 2018 when the suit was filed and as such there is no reason to send the documents for comparison now.

5. As far as the direction to the respondent for producing the document dated 01.12.2012 is concerned, the trial Court also took into account the contention of the respondent that the document is not in the custody of the respondent and the same has been deposited with the Andhra Bank. Further, the trial Court while considering the prayer of the petitioner for sending the Vakalat and Written Statement of the respondent filed in the suit for comparison, took the view that the said signatures cannot be treated as admitted signatures.

6. Heard Sri P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri G. Sravan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

7. The suit was filed in the year 2018. The applications had been filed in the year 2021 during the course of trial. The time for filing such applications would obviously be at the time of the trial, as any application filed before this would be treated as a premature application.

In the circumstances, the finding of the trial Court that the application has been filed belatedly cannot be accepted.

8. The petitioner had sought sending of the suit agreement of sale to the Forensic Laboratory for comparison with the signatures of the respondent in three documents, viz., Vakalath, Written Statement, and registered document dated 01.12.2012. The trial Court rejected the plea for production of the registered document dated 01.012.2012 by the respondent as the said document is not in the custody of the respondent. There can be no objection to the said view. Accordingly, the dismissal of I.A.No.591 of 2021 has to be upheld.

9. In I.A.No.592 of 2021 the trial court took the view that the signatures of the respondent on the Vakalath and written statement are not admitted signatures and as such they cannot be sent for comparison with the signatures of the respondent on the suit agree