ORDER:

The present Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 07.11.2022 (hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”) passed by the learned XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad, in I.A. No.1176 of 2019 in O.S. No.751 of 2011. By the Impugned Order, the Trial Court allowed the application filed by the respondent under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, directing that the Agreement of Sale (Ex.A1) bet sent to a handwriting expert for verification and submissions of a report regarding the disputed signature of the defendant.

For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their status before the Trial Court.

I. BRIEF FACTS

The factual backdrop to the present revision is as follows:

a) The respondent/plaintiff filed O.S. No.751 of 2011 against the petitioner/defendant, seeking recovery of money and relied upon receipt marked as Ex. A2. During the proceedings, the respondent filed I.A. No.1176 of 2019 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to send Ex. A1 to a Handwriting Expert for verification of the signatures of the petitioner/defendant and to submit a report pertaining to the handwriting/signature of the petitioner/defendant in Ex.A2. The petitioner opposed the said application on the ground that a second petition for sending the admitted signatures on Ex.A1 without any valid reason and without setting aside the earlier expert report, is not maintainable.

b) The learned Trial Court, by order dated 07.11.2022, allowed the application and directed that both Ex.A1 and Ex. A2 along with written statement, vakalath and chief evidence affidavit of the defendant containing his signature be sent to the Handwriting Expert for verification and report along with Ex. A1 Agreement of Sale. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred the present Civil Revision Petition seeking to set aside the impugned order.

II. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES:

a) Submissions on behalf of the petitioner/defendant:

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in directing Ex.A2 to be sent to a Handwriting Expert for the second time, to compare the signature on Ex.A2 with Ex.A1 and other admitted signatures contained in the written statement, vakalatnama, and chief affidavit of DW1. The learned counsel further contended that the first expert report had already conclusively held that the signature on Ex.A2 was not executed by the petitioner. The learned Trial Court failed to consider that no objections were filed by the respondent against the first report, and during cross-examination of the expert, no discrepancy was elicited. The first expert report is valid, complete, and sufficient for adjudication. Directing a second comparison of Ex.A2 with Ex.A1 without setting aside the first report is unnecessary, legally impermissible, and likely to create conflicting opinions, thereby prejudicing the Petitioner and complicating the adjudication of the suit.

Learned counsel emphasized that the Trial Court ignored the fact that the expert had sufficient standard and admitted signatures for comparison, and the expert never requested any additional signatures from 2009 contemporaneous with Ex.A2. No defect exists in the first report, and allowing a second report without properly considering it is liable to cause confusion and is against the interest of justice. Therefore, the Petitioner submitted that the impugned order is erroneous, arbitrary, and liable to be set aside, as directing a second report without any valid reason undermines the reliability of the expert opinion and violates principles of natural justice

b) Submissions on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff:

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff supported the impugned order and contended that the learned Trial Court, while exercising its