THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 2366 AND 2417 OF 2011 Dated:21-11-2014 Between
M.M. Shoab Qureshi
... PETITIONER
AND
Kamala Reddy and three others
.. RESPONDENTS
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 2366 AND 2417 OF 2011 COMMON ORDER:
The 2nd defendant in O.S No.198 of 2003 on the file of IX Additional Chief Judge (Fas t Track Court) , City Civil Court, Hyderabad filed these two revisions feeling aggrieved by two interlocutory orders dated 22-03-2011 passed in I.A Nos.150 and 151 of 2007 The 1st respondent filed the suit for the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale dated 03-10-2000, marked as Ex.A-1 against the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 4. The trial of the suit is in progress. The petitioner and the other defendants in the suit disputed the execution of Ex.A-1. Therefore, the 1st respondent filed I.A No. 150 of 2007 under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, with a prayer to send Ex.A-1 for comparison by and opinion of a handwriting expert. The application was opposed by the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 4. The trial Court allowed the I.A through order dated 22-03-2011.
C.R.P No. 2366 of 2006 is filed against the said order.
The 1st respondent pleaded that along with Ex.A-1, he has filed the original receipt dated 03-10-2000 executed by the petitioner herein, but the receipt was tampered by the time the suit came up for trial. Stating that he had a photocopy of the receipt dated 03-10-2000, he filed I.A No. 151 of 2007, with a prayer to permit him to file the said copy as secondary evidence. After contest by the parties, the trial Court allowed the I.A. The said order is challenged in C.R.P No. 2417 of 2011.
Heard Sri Mir Masood Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M. Govind Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent.
I.A No. 150 of 2007 was filed under Section 45 of the Evidence Act for the purpose of comparison by and opinion of a handwriting expert. Though necessary information can be elicited in the course of oral evidence, a party to the suit cannot be denied the facility of getting the disputed document examined by an expert. Further, the opinion would be only of some assistance to the trial Court in arriving at just and proper conclusion. No prejudice would be caused to the petitioner in case the expert’s opinion is received about Ex.A-1. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed in I.A No. 150 of 2007. Hence, C.R.P No. 2366 of 2011 is dismissed.
I.A No. 151 of 2007 was filed under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, with a prayer to receive photocopy of the receipt dated 03-10-2000 as secondary evidence. It is not in dispute that the 1st respondent filed the original of that very receipt. In case there are any interpolations or changes either before or after the filing of the suit, the same can be proved by leading appropriate evidence. Once the original of a document is before the Court, the question of receiving any secondary evidence of that very document does not arise. Therefore, C.R.P No. 2417 pf 2011 is allowed and the order in I.A No. 151 of 2001 is set aside.
However, it is directed that in case the expert opines that Ex.A-1 is not signed by any of the defendants, it shall be open to the 1st respondent to file application for comparison of the signatures on the receipt also.
The miscellaneous petitions filed in these revisions shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 21-11-2014 ks