BHERI NAGESWARA RAO Vs. MAVURI VEERABHADRA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed O.S. No.61 of 1999 in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, against the respondents herein, for the relief of declaration of title, in respect of the suit schedule property. The recording of evidence on behalf of both the parties is said to have been concluded. When the suit is at the stage of arguments, respondents 1 to 3 herein, being defendants 20, 21 and 22, filed I.A.No.1387 of 2005 under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (for short 'the Act'), to send the Xerox copies of Exs.B.13 and B.15 i.e., general power of attorney, dated 21-12-1988 and khararunama, dated 21-12-1988, for hand writing expert's opinion. The application was resisted by the petitioner. Through its order, dated 29-8-2005, the trial Court allowed the LA. The same is challenged in this civil revision petition.

(2.) Sri Satyanarayana Prasad, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the question of sending the Xerox copy of a document for the opinion of a hand writing expert is unknown to law. He contends that the occasion to invoke the power of the trial Court under Section 45 of the Act would arise only when there exist a original document containing the disputed signatures and another document containing the undisputed signatures of the same person. He points out that in the instant case, none of the ingredients existed and the trial Court ordered the LA. in a mechanical and routine manner.

(3.) Sri O. Manohar Reddy, the learned Counsel for the contesting respondents, on the other hand, submits that the only documents available for his clients, in the matter of verifying the signatures of the petitioner, were Exs.B.13 and B.15, and on being satisfied that the comparison of signatures on the said documents would help it in deciding the matter effectively, the trial Court ordered the I.A.