An application for expert opinion under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, filed at the argument stage after evidence is closed and after partial payment of the claim, may be rejected if it is intended to protract litigation and lacks bona fides.

Orders Reserved on : 05.12.2025.

Orders Pronounced on : 05.03.2026.

Orders Uploaded on : 06.03.2026.

The Court made the following ORDER:

The present Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 06.03.2025 passed in I.A.No.223 of 2024 in O.S.No.505 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirupati.

2) The petitioner herein filed the said suit against the respondent / defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- on the strength of a pronote dated 02.10.2016. The respondent filed written statement, inter alia, denying the execution of the suit promissory note and that the same is created and fabricated. When the matter is posted for arguments, the respondent / defendant filed the above said I.A. under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 151 of CPC seeking to send the suit pronote dated 02.10.2016 (Ex.A1) for comparison of his signatures with the admitted signatures on the contemporaneous documents. The petitioner / plaintiff filed counter and resisted the application. Learned Trial Court vide impugned order allowed the same. Feeling aggrieved, the present revision petition came to be filed.

3) Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff inter alia submitted that the learned Trial Court went wrong in allowing the Interlocutory Application in question without considering the matter in the proper perspective. He submits that the respondent-defendant had not taken a specific plea of „forgery‟ in the written statement and the observation of the learned Trial Court that the defendant had taken plea of forgery of suit promissory note is not correct or tenable. Drawing the attention of this Court to the relevant material on record, including the affidavit filed by the respondent–defendant in lieu of chief-examination and the cross-examination of the DW 1 (respondent/defendant), he submits that the respondent-defendant admittedly paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- during the pendency of the suit and only with an intention to drag on the proceedings filed the application in question, that the same is lacking in bona fides. He also contends that in view of Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act which empowers the Court to compare the signatures, the discretion as exercised by the learned Trial Court in allowing the application for comparison of signatures as sought for by the respondent–defendant is not just or tenable. Making the said submissions, he seeks to allow the revision petition by setting aside the order under challenge. In support of his contention that in the absence of a specific plea of „forgery‟, the learned Trial Court went wrong in ordering the I.A. in question, the counsel placed reliance on the decision of a learned Judge in Mallavarapu Sesha Reddy Vs Govela Srinivasa Rao ¹CRP No.1959 of 2022, dated 30.01.2023 (APHC)

4) On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-defendant sought to impress upon the Court that in the written statement a specific stand was taken that the suit pronote was fabricated. He submits that whether the respondent-defendant used the term „forgery‟ or „fabrication‟ is immaterial, since both point to the same plea, that there is no requirement in law that the defendant has to employ any specific terminology like „forgery‟ in the written statement. In effect, his contention is that when the execution of docume