JANACHAITANYA HOUSING LTD Vs. DIVYA FINANCIERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition filed under article 227 of the Constitution of India to revise the order dated 10-10-2007 in IA no. 1210/2006 in O. S. No. 291/2000 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Guntur was listed before us on a reference being made by a learned single Judge of this court to decide the question "whether an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act filed for sending the signatures for comparison and expert opinion, can be entertained at the later stage, including when coming up for arguments after entire trial?"

(2.) WHEN the revision petition came up for admission before a learned single Judge of this Court, it was pointed out the inconsistent views taken by two learned Judges of this court for maintaining the applications filed seeking expert's opinion at the belated stage of arguments in Kaveti Sarada v. Vemineni hymavati Pulaparti Sankuntala Bai v. Mygapula Ramanjaneyulu and Guru Govindu v. Devarapu Venkataramana.

(3.) BEFORE we proceed to answer the reference, we must say the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 for revising the order impugned is uncalled for at this stage, since the order if allowed to stand will not attain finality, and the learned trial judge in his discretion, may accept the expert's evidence or may not accept the same. Further, if the trial court decides the issue only on the basis of the expert evidence, the same is capable of correction in appeal, if any, preferred by the aggrieved party. In the absence of any prejudice or manifest injustice would be done to the parties, revision itself cannot be entertained as the same will not fall under the exceptions carved out by the Supreme Court in Surya Dev Rao v. Ram chander Rao.