Thota Adinarayana Reddy vs Thota Ravindranath Reddy
2023 Latest Caselaw 4559 AP

                                  1
                                                                    CMR, J.
                                                        C.R.P.No.242 of 2019



THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH R0Y

               Civil Revision Petition No.242 of 2019

ORDER:

Assailing the order, dated 26-09-2018, passed in I.A.No.910

of 2017 in O.S. No.48 of 2012 on the file of the learned Additional

Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuram, whereby the petition filed

under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, to send Ex.A5

disputed document to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Red Hills,

Hyderabad, for examination by the Expert, to compare the

admitted thumb impressions of the 2nd plaintiff with the thumb

impressions on Ex.A5, was dismissed, the instant Civil Revision

Petition is filed.

2) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

counsel for the respondent.

3) The parties will be referred as they are arrayed in the plaint

for the sake of convenience.

4) The plaintiffs 1 and 2 have filed the Suit-O.S.No.48 of 2012

for cancellation of the registered sale deed, which is marked as

Ex.A5, dated 05.02.2007. According to the case pleaded by the

plaintiffs, the 2nd plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property in

question and he has already executed a registered sale deed in

CMR, J.

C.R.P.No.242 of 2019

respect of the said property in favour of the 1st plaintiff and

thereafter, the defendant has fabricated another registered sale

deed in respect of the same property by forging the thumb

impression of the 2nd plaintiff, as if it was sold by the 2nd plaintiff

to the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiffs have filed the Suit for

cancellation of the said sale deed.

5) The trial in the Suit commenced. The plaintiffs have

adduced their evidence and thereafter, the defendant has adduced

his evidence. After closure of the evidence of both the parties, the

Suit is posted for hearing arguments. At that stage, the petition

under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act was filed by the

plaintiffs to send Ex.A5 sale deed to the Expert for examination.

The said petition was dismissed on the sole ground that the same

was filed at a belated stage and the plaintiffs did not take steps to

send the document for examination by the Expert at the earliest

point of time.

6) Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiffs have preferred the instant

Civil Revision Petition.

7) No doubt, there are severe laches on the part of the plaintiffs

in filing the petition under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act

to send Ex.A5 disputed document for examination by the Expert.

CMR, J.

C.R.P.No.242 of 2019

The plaintiffs ought to have, in fact, taken steps to send Ex.A5 for

examination by the Expert at the earliest point of time at the time

of adducing evidence by them. They did not take any such steps

at the time of adducing their evidence. After closure of the

evidence of the defendant and at the fag end of the Suit, they have

filed the present application under Section 45 of the Indian

Evidence Act. Undoubtedly, the plaintiffs are not diligent in

prosecuting their Suit. No explanation has been offered for not

filing the petition at the earliest point of time and as to why the

said petition was filed at the belated stage. Even at the time of

hearing the revision petition, when the Court specifically

questioned as to what is the reason for not filing the petition at

the earliest point of time and for filing a belated petition, no

explanation is offered by the learned counsel for the revision

petitioners. In fact, there is no answer to the said question.

Therefore, undoubtedly, the plaintiffs are guilty of laches and

inaction on their part and they are not diligent in prosecuting

their Suit.

8) However, that cannot be the sole ground for rejecting the

request of the plaintiffs to send Ex.A5 for examination by the

Expert. The Suit itself is founded on the ground that Ex.A5 sale

deed was fabricated and forged by the defendant as if it was sold

CMR, J.

C.R.P.No.242 of 2019

by the 2nd plaintiff to him. Therefore, it is inevitable for the

plaintiffs to prove that the 2nd plaintiff has not executed the said

sale deed and that the thumb impressions on it do not belong to

him. Though, the 2nd plaintiff has denied its execution, the

defendant still asserts that he has executed the same and that he

has put his thumb impressions on it. Therefore, in order to

resolve the said controversy involved in the Suit and for effective

adjudication of the dispute involved in the Suit, the evidence of

the Expert is required to find out whether the thumb impression

available on Ex.A5 is that of the 2ndplaintiff or not. The said

evidence is also required for the Court to effectively adjudicate the

said controversy.

9) The Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra

Pradesh, in the judgment rendered in the case of Janachitanya

Housing Ltd., Ameerpet v. Divya Financiers1 also held that no

time could be fixed for filing application under Section 45 of the

Evidence Act for sending the disputed signature or writings to the

handwriting expert for comparison and opinion and the same

shall be left open to the discretion of the Court; for exercising such

discretion when exigencies so demand, depending upon the facts

and circumstances of each case.

AIR 2008 A.P. 163 = (2008) 4 ALD 339

CMR, J.

C.R.P.No.242 of 2019

10) Therefore, the mere fact that there is a delay or laches on the

part of the plaintiffs in filing the petition cannot be a sole ground

to reject the request and when the Court finds that it is essential

to send the document for examination by the Expert in the facts

and circumstances of the case, the same can be entertained even

after at a belated stage.

11) However, in the instant case, considering the severe laches

on the part of the plaintiffs, this Court is of the considered view

that the petition can be allowed on heavy costs to adequately

compensate the defendant.

12) Resultantly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The

impugned order is set aside. Petition filed in I.A. No.910 of 2017

in O.S. No.48 of 2012 on the file of the learned Additional Senior

Civil Judge, Ananthapuram, stands allowed. Ex.A5 sale deed is

ordered to be sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Red Hills,

Hyderabad, to compare the thumb impression available on it of

the 2nd plaintiff with the admitted thumb impression of the of the

2nd plaintiff and to submit his opinion and report. The said

petition stands allowed on payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to the

defendant within fifteen days from the date of this order, failing

which, the petition stands dismissed.

CMR, J.

C.R.P.No.242 of 2019

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any,

shall stand closed.

________________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Date:27-09-2023.

Note:

Issue C.C. within a week.

B/O cs