ORDER:

Heard, K. Lingam Goud, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and V. Venkat Ram Narsaiah, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents. Perused the material available on the record.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 30.06.2023 (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned order”) passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Jayashankar Bhupalapally in I.A No. 62 of 2023 in O.S. No. 127 of 2022. By the impugned order, the learned Trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/defendant No.2 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act r/w. Section 151 of the C.P.C., to send the promissory notes, dated 20.11.2011 and 06.01.2010 i.e., Ex. A1 and A2 respectively, to the handwriting expert to compare and ascertain the signatures of petitioner/defendant with her admitted signatures on her Vakalathnama and written statement.

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

BRIEF FACTS

4. The factual backdrop to the present revision is as follows:

a) The respondent/plaintiff instituted suit vide O.S.No.91/2012 on the file of learned Principal District Judge, Warangal, seeking recovery of money against the petitioner/defendant No.2 and defendant No.1 based on two promissory notes dated 20.11.2011 and 06.01.2010, marked as Exs.A1 and A2 respectively, wherein the petitioner/Defendant No.2 alleged to have signed as a surety. Subsequently, due to bifurcation of the Districts and Mandals, the said suit was transferred to learned Principal District Judge, Jayashankar Bhupalapally and renumbered as O.S. No.127 of 2022.

b) During the course of trial, the petitioner filed I.A. No.62 of 2023 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to send Exs.A1 and A2 to a handwriting expert for comparison of the disputed signatures on the said documents with her admitted signatures on the vakalatnama and written statement.

c) The learned Trial Court, by order dated 30.06.2023, dismissed the said interlocutory application, inter alia, holding that the request was belated and not warranted at that stage. Aggrieved thereby, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the respondent/defendant No.2.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES:

a) Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner/ Defendant No.2:

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the finding of the learned Trial Court that sending Exs. A1 and A2 to an expert would delay the disposal of the summary suit is wholly untenable and contrary to settled principles, as a suit is required to be decided on merits rather than on technicalities. The petitioner submits that allowing the petition would, in fact, facilitate an effective and proper adjudication of the dispute by the learned Trial Court.

5. The learned counsel placed reliance upon Janachaitanya Housing Ltd. v. Divya Financiers¹2008 (3) ALT 409 (D.B.) wherein the High Court for the erstwhile composite State of Andhra Pradesh held that no rigid time limit can be prescribed for filing applications under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for sending disputed signatures or writings to a handwriting expert, and that such a request must be considered at the discretion of the Court, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case and the exigencies involved.

6. The petitioner further contends that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent No.1 if the application was allowed, and therefore the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

b) Submissions on behalf of the Respondent/Plaintiff:

7. The respondent submits that the present petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts and is liable to be dismissed in limine for want of merits, and that the same has been filed only with a view to delay the progress of the suit, which is pending since 2012. It is contended that the