FORGERY = Even where a document is sent for examination by an expert, the opinion is only persuasive in nature and it cannot be treated as final. If the opinion suffers from any lacunae, the concerned party can certainly point out the same. Ultimately, it is for the trial Court to satisfy itself as to whether the plea as to forgery or discrepancy is substantiated.; second opinion of expert on finger print = not only the expert rendered his opinion, but also the he was subjected to elaborate cross-examination. The matter must rest at that. The petitioner wanted the same document to be sent to another expert. It is only when the opinion expressed by the expert is set aside or found fault with, for any specified reasons, that the occasion may arise for repeating the exercise. The facts of the present case do not permit of such an effort. Therefore, civil revision petition is dismissed.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY 

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.58 OF 2013

ORDER:

          The petitioner and respondent No.18 filed O.S.No.10 of 1994 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle against respondents 1 to 17 herein for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties, which are said to be agricultural lands.  On behalf of the contesting defendants, a plea was raised to the effect that the father of the petitioner executed a will, marked as Ex.B.12 in their favour.  

Suspecting the genuinity of that will, the petitioner filed I.A.No.554 of 2004 under Section 45 of the Evidence Act with a request to send the document for the opinion of an expert. The I.A. was allowed and the expert rendered his opinion, to the effect that the signature and the thumb impression on the disputed document tally with those on the admitted documents.  The expert was also examined as D.W.1 and his opinion was made part of the record as Ex.X.1. 

          The petitioner filed I.A.No.494 of 2011 under Order 26 Rule 10 C.P.C. with a prayer to send the document for the opinion of a Government Finger Print Expert.  The application was opposed by the contesting defendants.  The trial Court dismissed the I.A. through its order, dated 09.10.2012.  Hence, this revision.

          Heard Sri N.Pramod, learned counsel for the petitioner.

          On the face of it, the I.A. filed by the petitioner was untenable, if not frivolous.  

Even where a document is sent for examination by an expert, the opinion is only persuasive in nature and it cannot be treated as final.  

If the opinion suffers from any lacunae, the concerned party can certainly point out the same.  

Ultimately, it is for the trial Court to satisfy itself as to whether the plea as to forgery or discrepancy is substantiated.

          In the instant case, 

not only the expert rendered his opinion, but also the he was subjected to elaborate cross-examination. 

The matter must rest at that.  

The petitioner wanted the same document to be sent to another expert.  It is only when the opinion expressed by the expert is set aside or found fault with, for any specified reasons, that the occasion may arise for repeating the exercise.  

The facts of the present case do not permit of such an effort.

          Therefore, civil revision petition is dismissed.

          The Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed in this Civil Revision Petition shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

____________________

L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J

Date: 08.02.2013

JSU

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY 

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.58 OF 2013

Date: 08.02.2013

JSU