Bandari Rekha vs Kante Parsharam
2021 Latest Caselaw 2336 Tel

       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

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

2004 (5) ALD 700

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