BAYYA MOHANA RAO Vs. PARSIA BALA SUBRAHMANYESWARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent filed O.S. No.38 of 2002 in the Court of II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, against the petitioners for the relief of partition of the suit schedule properties and for cancellation of sale deed dated 8-3-2002, in relation to 'B' Schedule property. He has also prayed for a decree for damages and other reliefs. The plaint was subsequently amended in certain respects. The respondent filed LA. No.450 of 2006, under Order 7 Rule 14 read with Section 151 C.P.C., with a prayer to condone the delay in receiving the documents mentioned therein. The first document is, the opinion rendered by the handwriting expert, by name, Sri C.S.R. Murthy, and another is, a letter addressed by the expert to the petitioners, returning the documents, after rendering the opinion. The remaining documents are, registration extract of G.P.A., and certified copies of Vakalat, written- statement, counter, etc. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the respondent herein stated that the G.P.A., dated 4-2-2002, said to have been executed by him, is not genuine, and after obtaining registration extract thereof, he sent the same along with the certified copies of the documents, containing his signature, to an expert by name C.S.R. Murthy, to avoid delay in the matter, and that the report of the expert has since been received. It is alleged that the opinion of the expert to the effect that the alleged G.P.A is not genuine; was also referred to.

(2.) The 1st petitioner filed a counter- affidavit, opposing the application. It is stated that, sending of the documents to an expert without the intervention of the Court is impermissible in law. He pleaded that the opinion rendered in such a case is invalid and not binding on the parties. An objection is taken to the provision invoked in the LA. The trial Court allowed the LA. through its order dated 10-7-2006. Hence, this C.R.P.

(3.) Sri P.R. Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the provision invoked by the petitioners has absolutely nothing to do with the relief claimed in the LA. He further contends that whenever a party to a suit intends to secure the opinion of handwriting expert, he has to file an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act (for short 'the Act), and it is for the Court to pass appropriate orders on such application, depending on its satisfaction. He submits that the trial Court did not apply its mind to the facts of the case, and had mechanically allowed the LA.