Y.DIWAKAR REDDY Vs. KOLLA SREENIVASULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the Order in I.A.No.959 of 2016 in O.S.No.213 of 2014 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Punganur, Chittoor District, whereby the application filed under Sec. 45 of the Indian Evidence Act read with Sec. 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short "CPC") to refer the disputed document i.e., agreement of sale, dtd. 16/4/2011, vakalath and the signatures of the defendant to be obtained in open Court to the expert for examination and opinion, was dismissed.

(2.) The petitioner herein is the defendant in the main suit and the respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of sale agreement, but the defendant raised a specific plea that it is a forged document. An issue was framed by the trial Court regarding inadmissibility of the document, but the parties went on trial. Plaintiff's evidence was closed and the suit was posted for defendant's evidence. At this stage, the application under Sec. 45 of the Evidence Act was filed to refer the disputed document i.e., agreement of sale, dtd. 16/4/2011 along with vakalath and the signatures of the defendant to be obtained in open Court, to the expert for examination and opinion.

(3.) The respondent/plaintiff filed counter pleading that the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The petitioner/defendant himself received an amount of Rs.50,000.00 and executed the suit agreement of sale. P.W.2 by name Ramoji, who is the attestor of the document, clearly deposed about the attestation of the document, but nothing could be elicited in the cross examination of P.W.2 regarding forgery. Therefore, the petitioner is resorted to the procedure to refer the document to the expert for examination and opinion. At this stage, the application is not maintainable and requested to dismiss the same.