S NEELAKANTAM Vs. MAHARUDRAIAH SWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dismissal of I.A. No. 33 of 2010 in O.S. No. 39 of 2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge's Court, Zaheerabad by the order dated 21-04-2010 led the unsuccessful defendant to approach this Court with this revision.

(2.) The defendant earlier filed I.A. No. 310 of 2008 to send the agreement of sale Ex.A.2 to a handwriting expert, which was allowed and the State Forensic Science Laboratory on examination of the document had opined that it is not possible to offer any opinion on the red enclosed portion marked 'Q' in question. The suit was posted for further evidence thereafter, at which stage the defendant again applied through this petition to send Ex.A.2 to Truth Laboratory, Hyderabad for giving an opinion whether the disputed portion in the document is different from the remaining portion of the contents of the document. The plaintiff opposed the request contending that he not only had no faith in any private agency accessible to one and all, but also opposed to the request, as any such expert's opinion is a very weak piece of circumstantial evidence. The plaintiff also stated that successive applications for the same relief ought not to be entertained and hence, requested for dismissal of the petition.

(3.) The trial Court in the impugned order opined that the opinion of the handwriting expert is not conclusive on any issue and the second application for the same purpose cannot be entertained in the light of the decision in N. Sreenivasulu v. N. Prakash Reddy and Anr., 2009 4 ALD 745.