THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3144 of 2014 Dated: 19.12.2014 Between:
Dumpala Basaveshwara Prakash .. Petitioner and Akula Srinivas and another .. Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. R. Gopi Mohan Counsel for the respondents: Mr. M. Pratap Singh The court made the following:
ORDER:
This civil revision petition arises out of order dated 31.07.2014 in I.A.No.45 of 2014 in O.S.No.87 of 2009 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District.
The respondents filed the above-mentioned suit for cancellation of registered sale deed bearing document No.3293/2002 dated 28.08.2002 to the extent of the land of their father, admeasuring 0.17 gts. in Sy.No.208/2 situated at Kummera Village, Chevella Mandal of Ranga Reddy District, and also for perpetual injunction against the petitioner herein. During the course of his evidence, the petitioner- defendant has marked Exs.B4 and B5, which are purported receipt and agreement of sale respectively, both dated 17.08.2002. As respondent No.1 has disputed his signatures on these documents during the evidence, the petitioner has filed I.A.No.45 of 2014, under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short ‘the Act’), for sending Exs.B4 and B5 for expert opinion. This application has been dismissed by the lower Court. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-defendant filed this civil revision petition.
I have heard Mr. R. Gopi Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. M. Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.
Since respondent No.1 has disputed his signatures on Exs.B4 and B5, the burden heavily lies on the petitioner to prove the same. The petitioner has, therefore, filed I.A.No.45 of 2014, for sending the documents for expert’s opinion.
Mr. Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that as there is a gap of more than seven years between the purported execution of Exs.B4 and B5 and the filing of the suit, there are bound to be variations in signatures due to time lag and that, therefore, it is not feasible to send the documents for expert’s opinion. He has also pointed out that though respondent No.1 has denied the execution of Exs.B4 and B5, the petitioner has not taken steps at the earlier point of time for getting the opinion of the expert.
A perusal of the record shows that there is a time lag of seven years between the execution of Exs.B4 and B5 and filing of the suit. If at all the pattern of signatures varies, that would be to the advantage of the respondents. The lower Court has observed that it can itself compare the signatures under Section 73 of the Act. However, when there is a serious dispute about the signatures and the burden lies on the petitioner to prove the genuineness of the documents, it would be always desirable to obtain the expert’s opinion, as that would make the task of the Court easier.
As regards the delay, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the first time, respondent No.1 has disputed Exs.B4 and B5 during his cross-examination on 08.08.2013 and that within a few months thereafter, his client has filed the application. This submission is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents.
In the light of the above facts, I am of the opinion that it would be in the interests of justice that Exs.B4 and B5 are sent for expert’s opinion.
Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. I.A.No.45 of 2014 in O.S.No.87 of 2009 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Chevella, Ranga Reddy District, is allowed as prayed for.
The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed.
As a sequel to the allowing of the civil revision petition, C.R.P.M.P.No.4316 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 19th December, 2014 IBL