ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition is directed against an order dated 30.10.2024 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Warangal, in I.A.No.274 of 2024 in O.S.No.135 of 2022 (Old O.S.No.152 of 2012).

2. By the said order, the learned Trial Judge has allowed the I.A. filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (“the Act”) for opinion of Expert.

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order should be set aside in view of an earlier application filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 under section 45 of the Act being dismissed by the same learned Judge on 25.07.2024. Counsel further submits that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 sought to adduce expert evidence in respect of a Sale Deed dated 22.12.1968. It is also the submission that the learned Judge passed the impugned order without referring to the earlier order of dismissal dated

25.07.2024.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 places the two applications filed by the respondent Nos.1 and

2 and the relief sought therein.

5. I have heard learned Senior Counsel and learned counsel appearing for the parties.

6. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.152 of 2012, which was re-numbered as O.S.No.135 of 2022. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed the Suit seeking declaration of title and for perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property.

7. The Court further finds that the respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs filed an earlier application (I.A.No.43 of 2022) for sending the original Sale Deed dated 22.12.1968 to the Forensic Department for verifying the signatures of the vendors (Mr.Azgar Hussain and Mr.Bakar Hussain) and for comparison of signatures. This application was dismissed by the Trial Court by the docket order dated 25.07.2024 on the ground that the plaint does not disclose any pleading with regard to the authenticity of the simple Sale Deed relied upon by the petitioner/defendant No.1 in the Suit. The application of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 was dismissed also on the ground that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 failed to file any document to establish the foundational facts which were necessary for the relief prayed for i.e., for expert evidence with regard to the Sale Deed dated 22.12.1968. The Trial Court was primarily of the view that the documents brought on record were disputed by the defendant No.1 and could not be considered as accepted signatures of the vendors.

8. Compared to the above, the order dated 30.10.2024, impugned in the present Civil Revision Petition, was for the specific prayer of the respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs to send the documents dated 22.12.1968 to the High Security Printing Press, Nasik, for the examination of the date of issuance of the non-judicial stamp paper. The Trial Court allowed the application on the ground that the plaintiffs have specifically pleaded that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the schedule property and hence it is incumbent on the plaintiffs to prove its case including on the authenticity of the Sale Deed dated 22.12.1968. The Trial Court was further of the view that the plaintiffs should be given an opportunity to disprove the document filed by the defendants namely the Sale Deed dated

22.12.1968.

9. It is evident from the above that the two I.As i.e., I.A.No.43 of 2022 and I.A.No.274 of 2024 were filed for distinct and different reliefs. The fact that the two I.As relate to the same document, namely the Sale Deed dated 22.12.1968, would not be the determining factor since the prayers are totally different. Second, the reasons given by the Trial Court that dismissing the earlier I.A. and allowing the later/present I.A. are also distinct and independent of each other. Therefore, the sweeping submission that the learned Judge could not have allowed the later I.A. after having dismissed the first I.A. does not have any substance.

10. In any event, the impugned order dated 30.10.2024 co