MATTA SRIRAMAMURTHY Vs. AREPALLI SRIRAMA MURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition is filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 85 of 2007 against the order dated 12.03.2014 passed in I.A. No. 478 of 2012 in O.S. No. 85 of 2007 by the learned IV Additional District Judge, Tanuku.

(2.) I have heard Sri J. Sreenivasa Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/plaintiff and Sri Siva Sankara Rao, Borra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant.

(3.) HERE is a case wherein the defendant took a specific plea in the written statement that he was not in Tanuku town on the alleged date of execution of Ex.A.1 agreement of sale and that he was at Bangalore and therefore the signatures on Ex.A.1 agreement of sale are forged. The defendant, however, did not file the interlocutory application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send the document for the opinion of the Handwriting Expert, either before the commencement of trial or soon after the trial was commenced. More so, in the instant case, the defendant took a specific plea in the written statement that the signatures on Ex.A.1 agreement of sale are forged signatures. Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act enables the Court to compare the signatures of a party so as to form an opinion as to the genuineness of the signatures. However, if the Court thinks that such an exercise can be done in a better and appropriate way with the aid of the opinion of Handwriting Expert, it can send the document to the Handwriting Expert for comparison and opinion.