J L BABU Vs. S GOWRI SHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner filed O. S. No. 1401 of 2007 in the Court of V Senior Civil Judge, City civil Court, Hyderabad, against the respondents, for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 26. 07. 2004. It was pleaded that the respondents executed the agreement of sale and have received part of sale consideration under receipts, dated 26. 07. 2004 and 27. 07. 2004. The respondents filed a written statement, disputing the genuineness of the agreement of sale as well as receipts.

(2.) THE 1st respondent filed I. A. No. 1011 of 2008 under Section 45 of the Evidence act (for short 'the Act), read with section 151 C. P. C. , with a prayer to send the agreement of sale and receipts, referred to above, for the opinion of a handwriting expert. The petitioner opposed the application, stating that it is too premature to send the documents for opinion of the expert, at that stage. It was contended that before sending the document, the Court itself may undertake an exercise under section 73 of the Act. It was also urged that the comparison of signature, in relation to the disputed document, has to be considered, only after the oral and documentary evidence is adduced. Through its order, dated 23. 03. 2009, the trial Court allowed the application. Hence, this revision.

(3.) SRI R. A. Achuthanand, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that it is for his client to prove the documents to the satisfaction of the Court. He contends that, if clinching oral and documentary evidence is adduced to prove the documents, the necessity to send the same for opinion of an expert may not arise. He further contends that, the question, as to whether the opinion of an expert is needed; can be considered, only after the doubt about the genuinity thereof subsists, even after the evidence is adduced and an exercise is undertaken by the trial Court under Section 73 of the Act, and viewed from this angle, the application filed by the respondents is premature.