THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY Civil Revision Petition No.684 of 2025

ORDER :

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article

227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 07.02.2025 passed in I.A.No.891 of 2024 in O.S.No.454 of 2005 by the XV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at Ibrahimpatnam (for short ‘the impugned order’).

2. Heard Mr.A.Rama Brahmma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.Tulsi Raj Gokul, learned counsel for the respondents.

Perused the record.

3. Vide the impugned order, the trial court has rejected a petition filed by the petitioner/defendant No.6 under Section 45A of the Indian Evidence Act read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908. 4. The petitioner/defendant No.6 through the said petition under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act wanted to put panchutanama dated 17.03.1993 along with the signatures of the plaintiff PW-1 put on the Vakalat and also on the document dated 05.01.1994 to the Forensic Science Laboratory for comparing the signatures put on the two documents.

5. It is this petition which has been rejected in the course of the recording of evidence which has lead to the filing of the instant civil revision petition.

6. At the outset, this Court is of the opinion that the trial court has not foreclosed the claim of the petitioner for subjecting the said document to be tested by the Forensic Science Laboratory, but has only granted the liberty to the petitioner to move the same at the later stage considering the fact that the suit is of the year 2005 and therefore the recording of evidence should not be stalled.

7. For ready reference, the observation made by the trial court is reproduced herein under:

“These documents can as well be sent to the expert after concluding the trial in the meanwhile evidence being adduced on both sides shall be completed. Accordingly, while given liberty to the petitioner to get these documents referred to the expert at a later stage. This petition is dismissed on the ground of pre maturity”.

8. Given the aforesaid findings by the trial court where the liberty of the petitioner stands protected for availing the leave sought for at a later stage, this Court does not find any strong case made out by the petitioner calling for an interference at this juncture. Reserving the liberty so granted by the trial court, the instant Civil Revision Petition stands rejected.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.

___________________

P. SAM KOSHY, J Date: 11.04.2025 AQS THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY Civil Revision Petition No.684 of 2025

11.04.2025 AQS