THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.661 and 711 of 2020
COMMON ORDER:
Since both the revisions are arising out of one suit, they are
taken up together and disposed of by this common order.
Both the Civil Revision Petitions are filed by the petitioners
questioning the common order dated 17.12.2019 passed by the
learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, in I.A. No.659
of 2017 and I.A. No.540 of 2019 respectively, whereby the learned
Judge had allowed the IAs filed by the respondent-plaintiff seeking
to direct the revision petitioner No.1 to produce the original gift deed bearing document No.697/2007, dated 19.07.2007 for comparison of signatures of late Rajesham with the disputed documents viz., receipts dated 10.03.2015, 06.09.2014, 10.09.2014 and 10.02.2015 and also to send the suit receipts for comparison of signatures of Late Rajesham with that of the signatures on the original gift settlement deed dated 19.07.2007 to hand-writing expert.
Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff. Perused the material on record.
The learned counsel for the revision petitioners has contended that there is a gap of almost seven years between the execution of the registered document and the disputed documents. Therefore, the registered document cannot be called as a "contemporary document" and cannot be sent to an Expert for 2 comparison. Learned counsel has relied on a decision of this Court in Renu Devi Kedia v. Seetha Devi1 to buttress his case.
Admittedly, the document sought to be sent for comparison is a registered document. If any variation is there between the signatures available on registered document and the disputed documents, it will accrue to the benefit of the petitioners only. Normally, there is no embargo for the trial Court in examining the disputed signatures by themselves, but when the Courts are not in a position to compare the signatures between the admitted and disputed ones, the discretion vests with the Courts to send the admitted and disputed signatures to the Experts for comparison and giving a report to the Court as to whether the signatures are one and the same and whether there is any variation between the same.
As held by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a catena of cases, the opinion of the Experts is duly a piece of evidence which the Court may or may not take into consideration at the time of rendering the judgment. Merely because the document is sent to an Expert for his opinion, the same will not become a conclusive proof and the petitioners will have ample opportunity to rebut the said Expert opinion by adducing other evidence.
Even though the petitioners' counsel has relied on Renu Devi Kedia's case, the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The document is a registered one and bears the signature of the person whose signature has to be confronted with the best available evidence. Merely because the document is 1 2004 (5) ALD 700 3 registered in the year 2007, the same cannot be brushed aside on the ground that it is not a contemporary document, more so, when the petitioners are also not denying the execution of the registered document or the signature on the registered document. Therefore, reliance can be placed on the same by the Court for the purpose of comparison.
For the afore-stated reasons, this Court does not find any perversity or illegality to interfere with the impugned common order and the revisions are liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. Pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
________________________ A.ABHISHEK REDDY, J Date : 11.08.2021.
sur