MEDIKONDA RAMA SWARAJYALAKSHMI Vs. POSINA SATHYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the first defendant being aggrieved by the order dt.7-8-1997 passed in I.A.No.1299 of 1997 in O.S.No.84 of 1991 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kovvur. By the impugned order, the petition filed by the first defendant for sending Ex. A-1-Agreement of Sale dt.13-3-1991 to the handwriting expert has been rejected by the Court below.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner con tended that Ex. A-1-Agreementof Sale is the suit agreement on the basis of which the first respondent plaintiff has filed the present suit for specific performance. He further contended that in the written statement filed by the defendants, the said agreement of sale has been denied as a forged document, but the Court below has erred in refusing to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it. As such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. He further submitted that since the hand writing expert ascertains whether the signature on Ex.A-1 is that of the petitioner or not on scientific basis such evidence is necessary and useful. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-plaintiff, supported the impugned order. He contended that the Court below has rightly dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner for sending the document to the hand writing expert. The Court below rightly observed that the present petition is filed at a belated stage only to protract the proceedings. He further stated that as it is for die plaintiff to prove the document and to prove the same the plaintiff has already examined the attestor and scribe of the document. He submitted that at any rate, the impugned order cannot be interfered with under Sec.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure,, in view of the fact that the impugned order cannot be said to be a 'case decided.' Moreover,under Sec.45 of the Evidence Act, the opinion of the handwriting expert is only an opinion and cannot he conclusive proof and therefore, the Court below rightly refused the petition filed by the petitioner.

(3.) From going through the impugned order and also from the contentionsurged on both sides, I find that few facts are admitted.