The discretion to allow expert examination of disputed documents under Section 45 is crucial for upholding justice in cases alleging forgery, regardless of procedural delays.

ORDER

The present Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated 01.09.2023 in I.A. No. 128 of 2022 in O.S. No. 376 of 2022 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge - cum-II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge -cum-Principal Family Court, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, at Kukatpally.

2. The revision petitioners herein are the defendants in the above said Suit.

3. The respondents herein filed the subject suit for declaration and cancellation of sale deed as plaintiffs vide O.S. No. 376 of 2022 (Old O.S. No. 432 of 2012) under Order VII Rule 1 r/w Section 26 of CPC.

4. The petitioner herein had filed the underlying interlocutory application vide I.A. No. 128 of 2022 in the subject suit under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short ‘the Act, 1872) for sending Ex. B1, Ex. A2 and Ex. A3 to Forensic Science Laboratory for handwriting expert opinion and to compare the alleged signature of A. Narsimha Reddy on Ex. B1 with his original signature on Ex. A2 and A3.

5. The Trial Court upon hearing both the parties has allowed the underlying Interlocutory Application filed by the petitioner observing that Exs. A2 and A3 are documents obtained from the Telangana Housing Board and a Bank, respectively, which bear the admitted signatures of Late Sri A. Narasimha Reddy, and there is no dispute as to the genuineness of the signatures on those documents. In view of the specific plea taken by the petitioners that the signature on Ex. B1 does not belong to Late Sri A. Narasimha Reddy, the Court held that the only appropriate course to ascertain the truth is to seek expert opinion under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act.

6. The Trial Court further observed that although the petition was filed at the stage of evidence of the petitioners herein, there is no statutory bar in filing such an application at that stage, especially when the interest of justice so demands. The objection regarding the 21-year gap between the admitted documents (Exs. A2 and A3) and the disputed document (Ex. B1) was not found to be a valid ground to reject the petition, as in the absence of contemporaneous documents, available admitted signatures can still be subjected to expert comparison. The trial Court also observed that while natural variations in handwriting may occur over time, a handwriting expert is competent to conduct a comparative analysis and provide a reasoned opinion based on signature characteristics and writing style. Accordingly, the Trial Court directed that Ex. B1, along with Exs. A2 and A3, to be sent to a handwriting expert for examination.

7. Aggrieved by the above said order dated. 01.09.2023 the petitioners herein had preferred the present Civil Revision Petition. 8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

9. The petitioners contend that the respondents are not related to Late Sri A. Narasimha Reddy, the vendor of Petitioner No. 1, and have failed to produce any legal heir certificate to prove their claim of being his legal heirs; that it is a settled principle of law that the burden to prove rests on the respondents herein to prove that they are the legal heirs of A. Narasimha Reddy; that the suit schedule property was sold by Late A. Narasimha Reddy to the petitioner No.1; that the petitioners have produced prima facie evidence through the sale deed Ex. B1, and the respondents have no locus standi