PULAPARTI SANKUNTALA BAI Vs. MYGAPULA RAMANANEYULU

JUDGEMENT

(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.