M.S. Ramachandra Rao ORDER
M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J.
1. This Revision is filed challenging the order dt. 10.07.2012 in I.A. No. 1289 of 2012 in O.S. No. 277 of 2005 of the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the above suit. He filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale-receipt dt. 04.04.2004. The signatures on the said document were denied by the respondents.
2. Issues were framed. Evidence of the plaintiff was closed and the matter was coming up for examination of D.W. 1. At that stage, the petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A. No. 1289 of 2012 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short 'the Act') to send the said document to an expert in handwriting to compare the signatures thereon with the admitted signatures of respondents 1 and 2 on Exs. B1 to B4, the plaint and vakalat.
3. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, it was contended by the petitioner that in order to establish that the document in question was executed by the respondents since D.W. 1 had denied his signature as well the signature of other defendant thereon with a mala fide intention, it is just and necessary to send the said document to an expert in handwriting to secure an opinion as to whether the signatures thereon are that of respondents or not, after comparing the same with their admitted signatures on Exs. B1 to B4 etc.
4. This application was opposed by the respondents. They contended that this application has been filed belatedly after they were cross-examined and the matter was posted for arguments and the sole intention of the petitioner is to drag on the matter. They contended that there is enough evidence let in by them to enable the Court to come to a conclusion with regard to the execution of the said document. They also pleaded that the expert opinion is not binding on the Court and the Court itself can compare the signatures under Section 73 of the Act.
5. By order dt. 10.07.2012, the Court below dismissed the said application on two grounds. It observed that there is ample oral evidence before the Court to consider the genuineness and validity of the document and the application filed at the stage of arguments by the petitioner cannot be allowed since the petitioner had already examined concerned persons to prove his case. It also pointed out that the respondents had taken the contention of forgery long back and that soon after framing of issues or before the evidence of the plaintiff was concluded, no steps were taken. It further observed that the evidence of the expert, even if taken, would not override the other evidence placed on record.
6. Challenging the same, this Revision is filed.
7. Heard Sri A. Pulla Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. Pradeep Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the observation of the Court below that the application to send the disputed document to an expert was filed at a belated stage is not correct since the Division Bench of this Court in Janachaitanya Housing Limited v. Divya Financiers MANU/AP/0137/2008 : 2008 (3) ALT 409 had opined that no hard and fast rule can be laid down in that regard. As regards the other observation by the Court below that the Court can itself compare and come to a conclusion under Section 73 of the Act is concerned, learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in Velaga Sivarama Krishna v. Velaga Veerabhadra Rao