THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.670 of 2020
ORDER:
The present Civil Revision Petition is filed, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order, dated 18.02.2020 made in I.A.No.157 of 2020 in O.S.No.52 of 2013, whereunder the learned I-Additional District Judge, Khammam, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff, under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, for sending Ex.B1 certified copy of the registered sale deed, dated 10.05.2011, and Ex.B1-Will Deed dated 10.02.1996, to any Handwriting Expert for comparison of signatures of one A.Nageswar Rao and opinion by condoning the delay if any.
The facts, in issue, are as under:
The petitioner/plaintiff filed the above suit against the respondents/defendants for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. When the said suit was posted for arguments, the petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A.No.157 of 2020 for sending the aforesaid documents to Handwriting Expert for comparison of signatures of one A.Nageswar Rao, who is the attester of Ex.B1-Will Deed. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that in the above suit, the petitioner/plaintiff got examined P.W.4, who is well acquainted with A.Nageswara Rao, who is no more, and as such, the petitioner/plaintiff filed 2 certified copy of registered sale deed No.1853/2011, dated 10.05.2011, which contains the admitted signature of A.Nageswara Rao. It is also stated that the signature of A.Nageswara Rao in the certified copy of registered sale deed and the Will Deed, which was marked as Ex.B1 is different and whether both the signatures are signed by one person or not can be proved through an handwriting expert only. It is further stated that the plea of the petitioner/plaintiff is that Ex.B1-Will Deed is fabricated and false, as such, it is just and necessary to send the said documents to handwriting expert to meet the ends of justice and to prove her case. It is also stated that if the petition is not allowed, she will suffer irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated under any circumstances apart from miscarriage of justice.
Respondents/defendants filed counter contending that the said petition filed for comparison of signature of one A.Nageswara Rao, who is one of the witnesses on Ex.B1-Will Deed, dated 10.02.1996, with that of his signature on certified copy of the registered sale deed No.1853/2011, dated 10.05.2011 by an expert is not tenable and without any justification. It is also contended that pertinently signature of said A.Nageswara Rao, appearing on certified copy of the registered sale deed No.1853/2011 is a Xerox copy, which cannot be compared and more so, the signature of A.Nageswara Rao on the registered sale deed No.1853/2011 is not 3 contemporaneous with his signature on Ex.B1-Will Deed, pertaining to the year 1996 and prayed to dismiss the said petition.
After considering the material available on record and the aforesaid rival submissions, the trial Court dismissed the said application. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff.
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff, learned Counsel for the respondents/defendants and perused the record.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff would submit that the learned trial Judge dismissed I.A.No.157 of 2020 on the ground that registered sale deed is not contemporaneous document with that of Ex.B1-Will Deed, which is of the year 1996 and as such it cannot be compared and further certified copy cannot be compared as contemporaneous signature. It is also submitted that the learned trial Judge failed to see that the certified copy can be compared as contemporaneous signature with the disputed signature. It is further submitted that in Bhavanam Siva Reddy and others v. Bhavanam Hanumantha Reddy and another1 it was held that "what a person thinks in respect of the existence or non- existence of fact is an opinion. As a general rule the opinion or belief of third person is not relevant and admissible as the witnesses are allowed to state facts alone of what themselves saw or heard. 1 (2017) 4 ALT 682 4 But, an expert is the person, who specifically or specially skilled or practiced on any subject". In Koya Lalitha Kumari and others v. Polina Nageswara Rao (died) per L.Rs.2 it was held that "Expert shall furnish to the Court necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of his conclusions to enable the Court to form its own independent judgment by application of such criteria to the facts proved in the case". In Poluru Sreenivasulu v. Gajulu Sravan Kumar3 it was held that "there is no time limit to file application in seeking to send the document containing a disputed signature or writing etc., to expert." In Janachaitanya Housing Limited v. Divya Financiers4 it was held that "an application can be filed even at the stage of arguments, if circumstances of case so demand. Discretion of Court to deal with such applications cannot be controlled by hard and fast rules." In Sakriya Krishna Bai (died) per L.R.s v. Syed Ismal (died) per L.R.s5 it was held that "Courts to take assistance of experts and Section 73 of the Evidence Act does bar the Judge from ultimately deciding whether the signatures are forged or not still as a rule of prudence in disputed cases, it is always desirable that a Court should secure the opinion of quality handwriting expert on the subject after the opinion of the expert, is introduced into the evidence as required by law and the Court can come to a conclusion". In P.Kusuma Kumari v. State of A.P.6 it 2 (2016) 1 ALT 42 3 (2017) 2 ALT 414 4 (2008) 3 ALT 409 (D.B.) 5 (2018) 1 ALT 772 6 (2016) 2 ALT (CRI) (AP) 476 5 was held that "though the Court got power under section 73 of Evidence Act and there is even other remedies to prove, the Court generally being not an expert in comparison of signature and handwritings etc., with scientific expertise; take an experts opinion with reasons under Section 45 of the Evidence Act read with Section 151 of C.P.C." In Matta Sriramamurthy v. Arepalli Srirama Murthy7 it was held that "Before exercising powers under Section 73 of the Evidence Act to form an opinion by comparing the handwriting or signature of a party, it would always be proper for the Court to take the assistance of handwriting expert is to be in a better position to form an appropriate opinion."
Learned Counsel for the respondents/defendants would submit that the signature of said A.Nageswar Rao on the registered sale deed of the year 2011 is not contemporaneous with his signature on Ex.B1-Will Deed pertaining to the year 1996 and as such it cannot be compared and further certified copy of the registered sale deed cannot be compared as contemporaneous signature. He further submits that though the subject suit was filed in the year 2013, the present application was filed by the plaintiff in the year 2020 only to protract the proceedings. He further submits that the trial Judge had assigned cogent reasons, while dismissing the petition and there is nothing on record to take a different view and prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition. 7 (2015) 3 ALT 266 6 In view of the above submissions, the point that arises for consideration is "whether the certified copy of sale deed bearing No.1853 of 2011 be sent to the handwriting expert along with Ex.B1- Will Deed, for comparison of signature of A.Nageswar Rao or not?.
The party, who seeks the assistance of experts opinion evidence, should demonstrate, at the earliest opportune point of the proceedings, as to how a reasonable doubt in forming an opinion or in drawing a reasonable conclusion about the genuineness of the questioned document is persisting and as to how the experts opinion would help the Court to arrive at a just conclusion. Otherwise, recourse to Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act would become a useless tool in the hands of a litigant to protract the proceedings unproductively for a long period. Any such attempt would, far from promoting the cause of justice, defeat it.
In the instant case, not a single cogent reason has been spelt out by the petitioner/plaintiff in the affidavit filed in support of the petition as to why she has not taken any steps for sending the documents in question to the handwriting expert for comparison of signatures of one A.Nageswar Rao at the earliest point of time. As seen from the record, it is evident that the suit was coming up for arguments from 02.04.2019 and after conclusion of the arguments, the suit was reserved for judgment on 12.07.2019. Thereafter, the suit was got reopened by the petitioner/plaintiff for further 7 evidence on 19.09.2019 and the petitioner/plaintiff got recorded the evidence of P.Ws.3 to 5 and after lapse of five months, the petitioner/plaintiff again filed the present application only to protract the litigation for a long period. Moreover, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondents, the certified copy of the registered sale deed is of the year 2011 and the Will deed (Ex.B1) is pertaining to the year 1996, which is not a contemporaneous document. Therefore, the present application cannot be entertained when the suit was coming up for arguments. The genuinity or otherwise of Ex.B-1 will be taken into consideration by the trial Court while appreciating the evidence on record. Hence, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the order of the trial Court which has given cogent reasons for refusing to send the documents to an expert. I find no merit in this revision.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions pending if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI 28.01.2021 Gsn/gkv