THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY Civil Revision Petition No.1529 OF 2024

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order, dated 03.04.2024, passed by the Senior Civil Judge-cum- Assistant Sessions Judge, Zaheerabad, in I.A.No.227 of 2022 in O.S.No.56 of 2009.

2. Heard Sri G.Dinesh Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Giri Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants in the suit.

4. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein filed a suit vide O.S.No.56 of 2009 on the file of Senior Civil Judge- cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Zaheerabad, for declaration of title and injunction and also cancellation of registered sale deed document bearing No.1048 of 1977 dated 16.12.1977 i.e., Ex.B1, against the respondents herein. The respondents entered appearance and filed written statement denying the plaint averments. The entire trial was completed and the matter was coming up for arguments and at this stage, the petitioner filed an application under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to send the original sale deed bearing document No.1048 of 1977 dated 16.12.1977 to hand writing expert for comparison of signatures and thumb impressions. It is averred that sale deed bearing No. 1048 of 1977 (Ex.B1) was not signed by the petitioner and was impersonated and therefore, to prove the veracity of the document, it is required to be sent to hand writing expert to prove that signatures and thumb impressions does not belong to the petitioner.

5. Respondent No.2 filed counter opposing the said application contending that when the matter is coming up for arguments, present application is filed at belated stage and therefore, prayed to dismiss the same.

6. The trial Court duly taking into consideration the contentions of the both the parties dismissed the application by impugned order. Trial Court observed that the petitioner was aware of the stand and contentions taken by the respondents in the written statement and came up with the present application at the belated stage and also failed to offer satisfactory reasons for filing application to send Ex.B1 to expert at the earliest point of time.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner filed the suit for declaration of title and injunction and cancellation of registered sale deed i.e., Ex.B1, as the same is forged document and therefore, the petitioner filed an application to send Ex.B1 to hand writing expert for comparison of signatures and thumb impression of the petitioner and that the said aspect is crucial for proper adjudication of the matter. He further submitted that no time limit is fixed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to send disputed documents to hand writing expert and the same can be done at any stage of trial and this aspect was not properly considered by the trial Court and has dismissed the application an improper appreciation of the facts and circumstances of case and erroneous observations. Thus, prayed to allow the CRP.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application on due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case. He further submitted that the application was filed at belated stage that too when the matter is coming up for arguments and further, the petitioner failed to offer proper and sufficient reason for filing the application at belated stage and thus, prayed to dismiss the revision as being devoid of any merit.

9. Perusal of the record would disclose that the suit was filed in the year 2009, and the respondents have filed written statement in the year, 2010, wherein specific stand has been taken by the respondents with regard to the denial of signature on Ex.B1, and that the said document was brought into existence by playing fraud and impersonation. Issues have been framed basing on the pleadings a