Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Pulaparti Sankuntala Bai vs Mygapula Ramanjaneyulu on 22 February, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2006(3)ALD146, 2006(3)ALT607
Author: L. Narasimha Reddy
Bench: L. Narasimha Reddy
ORDER L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. The respondent filed O.S. No. 33 of 2000 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Narsapur, against the petitioner, for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 10-1-1996. The petitioner denied the execution of the agreement of sale. The trial of the suit commenced, and the recording of evidence is, said to be, almost, completed. At that stage, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1319 of 2004 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act (for short 'the Act'), with a prayer to send the agreement of sale for analysis, and opinion, by a handwriting expert. Through its orders dated 8-9-2004, the trial Court rejected the application. Hence, this C.R.P.
2. Sri K. Chidambaram, learned Counsel for the petitioner-submits that the dismissal of the application, on the ground that the comparison can be undertaken by the Court, under Section 73 of the Act, cannot be sustained in law. He contends that, from the beginning, the petitioner disputed the execution of the agreement of sale, and simply because the denial was not emphatic, during the course of recording of evidence, the request of the petitioner cannot be rejected.
3. Learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner did not take any steps for the past several years, upto the stage of conclusion of her own evidence, and at this stage, it is impermissible for her, to come forward with the present application.
4. Section 45 of the Act enables the parties, who dispute the genuinity of any document; to send the same for expert's opinion. It hardly needs any emphasis that the opinion so obtained, is purely of evidentiary value and cannot be treated as conclusive proof of the concerned document.
5. The stage at which, an application under Section 45 of the Act must be filed, has its own significance. If the dispute is, as to the execution of document, by one of the parties to the suit, the application must be filed before the evidence of such party is closed. The reason is that, the witness can be confronted with the document, together with the opinion obtained, in relation thereto, during the course of evidence. Sending a document for expert's opinion, after the concerned witness has been examined in chief and cross; renders the very exercise, almost futile. The witness would not be available for being confronted with the evidence. If the matter is examined in this context, it is evident that the petitioner came forward with the instant application, after she has been examined as a witness, both in chief and cross-examinations, after her evidence has been recorded, in its entirety. Sending a document for expert's opinion, after the concerned witness, whose signature is in dispute, is examined, would, in most of the cases, amount to filing the lacuna. Strong and cogent reasons need to be furnished, for such a belated application. In this case, the petitioner did not state any reason, worth its name, as to why the application was filled at such a belated stage.
6. At any rate, it shall always be open to the petitioner to persuade the Court, that she did not execute the agreement of sale. The trial Court has already expressed its view, that it can undertake comparison of that document, by itself, under Section 73 of the Act. It is not as if the opportunity for examination of the document, through expert, is closed, once for all. In case, the Court itself finds the necessity of sending the document for expert's opinion, after undertaking a comparison, by itself, it shall always be open to do so. However, this exercise can be undertaken only by the Court, on its own accord, and after recording cogent reasons.
7. For the foregoing reasons, the C.R.P. is disposed of, upholding the order under revision, but with an observation that, it shall be open to the trial Court to undertake comparison of the admitted signatures/thumb impressions, of the petitioner, on the one hand, and those on the agreement of sale, dated 10-1-1996, on the other hand, and leaving it open to the trial Court to obtain expert's opinion, if it finds that the same is warranted. There shall be no order as to costs.