HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY C.R.P.No.3773 of 2014 Date : 14-11-2014 Between :
P. Ram Reddy and another .. Petitioners And M. Pulla Reddy and another .. Respondents Counsel for petitioners : Sri V. Ramakrishna Reddy Counsel for respondents : --
The Court made the following order ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 16-9-2014 in I.A.No.636 in O.S.No.2175 of 2006 on the file of the learned VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad.
The respondents have filed the above mentioned suit for specific performance of Ex.A-1 agreement of sale. The petitioners have filed written statement denying the execution. However, during their cross examination as DW- 1 and DW-2, the petitioners have admitted their signatures on the first page of Ex.A-1, but denied the signatures on the remaining pages. After the completion of the evidence and when the case was posted for arguments, the petitioners have come out with I.A.No.636 of 2014 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short "the Act") for sending the signatures on Ex.A-1 to an expert for comparison between the signatures on the first page and the other pages. This application was dismissed by the lower Court.
From the facts of the case, it is evident that the suit was filed as far back as 2006 and the petitioners, though have taken the stand in the written statement at the earliest point of time that Ex.A-1 was forged, they have not taken steps for getting the suit document sent for expert’s opinion till completion of the trial. Therefore, as rightly concluded by the lower Court, the petitioners’ application is far too belated which is obviously intended to drag on the suit.
Under Section 45 of the Act, opinions of experts constitute relevant evidence. However, such opinions will not bind the Court. It is only the Court which has to eventually take a decision, if necessary by comparing the signatures of the parties under Section 73 of the Act. In this view of the matter, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower Court. The lower Court is directed to examine the plea of the petitioners relating to forgery by undertaking comparison of the admitted signatures on the first page of Ex.A-1 with their signatures on the other pages thereof while adjudicating the suit.
Subject to the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
As a sequel to the dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition, CRPMP No.5152 of 2014 is disposed of as infructuous.
Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 14-11-2014 AM