CHIDARA UMA MAHESHWAR RAO Vs. METHUKU JANARDHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed against order, dated 09.04.2013, in I.A. No. 320 of 2013 in O.S. No. 78 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Warangal. The respondent filed the above-mentioned suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale in respect of the suit schedule property. The petitioner is the defendant in the said suit. After completion of evidence on the plaintiff's side, the petitioner has filed I.A. No. 320 of 2013 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1897 (for short 'the Act') for sending the said agreement of sale for opinion of a Handwriting expert. This application was dismissed by the lower Court by order, dated 09.04.2013.

(2.) A perusal of the order of the lower Court shows that rejection of the petitioner's application was based on the judgments of this Court in Uttamchand Sarma Vs. Jasti Chinna Veerabhadra Rao,2004 ALD 55, Kaveti Sarada Vs. Vemineni Hymavathi, 2006 4 ALD 460, Pamu Padmavathi Vs. Perati Yakub Reddy, 2008 2 ALT 483and Lagadapati Dhanalakshmi and others Vs. Lagadapati Anjaneyulu, 2009 5 ALD 542.

(3.) These judgments held that the expert's opinion does not bind the Court and that the Court can arrive at its own conclusion on the genuineness or otherwise of the documents based on the evidence on record and also its own opinion on comparison of the signatures under Section 73 of the Act. Upon considering these judgments, the lower Court has concluded that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 is available on record, besides the availability of the admitted signatures of the defendant in the vakalatnama and the written statement and that the Court can consider the evidence and also compare the signatures before coming to a conclusion on the genuineness or otherwise of the said agreement of sale.