sending the alleged suit agreement to handwriting expert for comparison of their admitted signatures with that contained on the suit document. before framing of issues - is maintainable - When the genuineness of a document is in serious dispute, it is desirable that such document is examined by an expert and an opinion given thereon to aid the Court to come to a right conclusion. Though Section 73 of the Act vests power in the Court to compare the disputed signatures or writings, the preponderance of judicial opinion is to the effect that it is always desirable to seek an expert's opinion though eventually the opinion of the Court which is final. In the light of the above discussion, I do not find any jurisdictional error in the order of the Court below in allowing the I.A. filed by the respondents. However, in the light of the apprehension expressed by learned counsel for the petitioner that the suit may be delayed in the process of obtaining expert's opinion, she can move the Court below for expediting the process of obtaining expert's opinion.

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY          

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1226 OF 2017    

10-03-2017
       
Pabolu Prameela Rani, W/o Anjaneyulu, 30 years, R/o D.No. 12-21-5/1,
Seetanagaram, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam--Petitioner  

Bogi Prasanthi, W/o Srinivasa, 33 years, R/o D.No. 9-7-11, High School Road,
Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam, and anotherRespondents    


Counsel for the petitioner      :       Smt. B.V.Aparna Lakshmi

Counsel for the respondents     :       --

<GIST :

>HEAD NOTE :  

?Cases referred :


ORDER:
      This civil revision petition arises out of order dated 06-01-2017 in
I.A.No.
713 of 2016 in O.S.No. 46 of 2016 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil
Judge,
Gajuwaka (for short, 'the Court below').
2.      I have heard Smt. B.V.Aparna Lakshmi, learned counsel for the petitioner,
and perused the record.
3.      The petitioner filed the aforementioned suit for permanent injunction
restraining the respondents from alienating plaint C schedule property to third
parties without offering the same to her at the first instance as per the pre-
emption clause in agreement dated 08-11-2013 allegedly entered between 
herself and the respondents.  The respondents filed a written statement, wherein
it is inter alia averred that they have not entered into any agreement much less
agreement dated 08-11-2013 and the said agreement is a fabricated document 
with an intention to grab the property.  It is further alleged that the
petitioner
might have created the said document with forged signatures of the respondents.
It is further stated that the respondents are ready to send the alleged
agreement 
to handwriting expert.  As pleaded by them in the written statement, the
respondents have filed I.A.No. 713 of 2016 under Section 45 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, 'the Act'), read with Section 151 of the Code of
Civil Procedure for sending the alleged suit agreement to handwriting expert for
comparison of their admitted signatures with that contained on the suit
document.  The petitioner filed a counter affidavit opposing the said
application.
However, by the order under revision the Court below has allowed the I.A.
4.      During hearing when a query is put to the learned counsel for the
petitioner as to how her client is prejudiced against the order of the Court
below,
she has failed to give satisfactory reply except stating that the process of
obtaining expert's opinion will consume substantial time.  I am wholly
unconvinced with this reply because as the very basis on which the petitioner
has made her claim was the suit agreement and the respondents are seriously
disputing its genuineness, it is in the petitioner's own interest to obtain an
expert's opinion on the suit agreement so that if she has a genuine case, she
will
succeed on expert's opinion.  In other words, the job which the petitioner was
expected to undertake is being carried out by the respondents.  When the
genuineness of a document is in serious dispute, it is desirable that such
document is examined by an expert and an opinion given thereon to aid the
Court to come to a right conclusion.  Though Section 73 of the Act vests power
in
the Court to compare the disputed signatures or writings, the preponderance of
judicial opinion is to the effect that it is always desirable to seek an
expert's
opinion though eventually the opinion of the Court which is final.  In the light
of
the above discussion, I do not find any jurisdictional error in the order of the
Court below in allowing the I.A. filed by the respondents.  However, in the
light of
the apprehension expressed by learned counsel for the petitioner that the suit
may be delayed in the process of obtaining expert's opinion, she can move the
Court below for expediting the process of obtaining expert's opinion.
5.      Subject to the liberty given to the petitioner above, the civil revision
petition is dismissed.
6.      As a sequel to dismissal of the civil revision petition, C.R.P.M.P.No.
1641
of 2017 shall stand dismissed as infructuous.
_________________________  
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J.    
Date: 10-03-2017