PERUGU RAMA RAO Vs. PALAGANI RATNAKUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent filed O. S. No. 324 of 1998 against the petitioners in the court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, guntur, for the relief of specific performance of two agreements of sale, dated 11. 4. 1990, in respect of items 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule property. The trial Court decreed the suit. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed A. S. No. 133 of 2004 in the Court of iii Additional Sessions Judge, at Guntur. At a later stage, they filed LA. No. 399 of 2007, under Section 45 of the Evidence act (for short 'the Act'), with a prayer to send the agreements of sale, marked as exs. A-1 and A-3, to a handwriting expert, for comparison of signatures thereon, with certain other documents. The respondent opposed the application, and through its order dated 19. 7. 2007, the lower Appellate court dismissed the LA. Hence, this C. R. P.

(2.) SRI P. R. Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the mere fact that an application, under Section 45 of the Act, was not filed during the pendency of the suit; cannot be treated as a factor, to deny the relief to the petitioners, at the stage of appeal.

(3.) PETITIONERS suffered a decree for specific performance of agreements of sale, in the suit. It is not as if they were denied the opportunity to lead such evidence, as they intended to, before the trial Court. It is no doubt true, that they disputed their signatures on the agreements of sale. However, they did not feel the necessity of sending the documents for the examination of an expert during the trial. They came forward with an application under Section 45 of the Act, only at the stage of appeal.