(Prayer: Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased tobegs to present this Memorandum. of Civil Revision( Petition against the order passed in I.A.NO.1285/2022 in 0.S.No49/2021 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudivada, Krishna District

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to Stay of all further proceedings in O.S No.49/2021 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudivada, and pass)

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the legality and correctness of the orders dated 14.08.2023 passed in I.A.No.1285 of 2022 in O.S.No.49/2021 by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudivada.

2. The Revisionist is the petitioner/ defendant whereas the respondent is the respondent/plaintiff in I.A.No.1285 of 2022 in O.S.No.49/2021.

3. The facts that led to filing of the Civil Revision Petition, in brief, are as follows:

                  In the suit filed by the respondent vide O.S.No.49 of 2021, the revision petitioner who was defendant in the said suit filed the petition vide I.A.No.1285 of 2022 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to send the agreement of sale dated 15.02.2018 to handwriting expert for the purpose of comparing the signatures in the first page and second page of the said agreement of sale with the signatures on the vakalat, written statement and registered sale deed dated 15.06.2012.

                  The respondent by filing counter reported no objection for sending the agreement of sale to handwriting expert for comparison with the authenticated signatures of the petitioner of the relevant period.

                  (ii) The learned trial Judge upon considering the material available on record and the submissions made by both the learned counsel, dismissed the petition, holding that vakalat and written statement cannot said to be the authenticated comparing material and the registered sale deed dated 15.06.2012 cannot be said to be a document of contemporaneous period, since disputed signature is dated 15.02.2018.

                  (iii) The said dismissal order is assailed in this Civil Revision Petition.

4. Heard Sri B.S.Venkata Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri O.Udaya Kumar, learned counsel for respondent.

5. Sri B.S.Venkata Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the petition before trial Court and grounds of revision, would contend that production of documents of the contemporaneous period cannot be a ground to reject the claim made by the petitioner for sending the document to handwriting expert. He would further contend that the signature found on the first page of the agreement of sale differs with that of the signature found on its second page and unless the document is sent for comparison of the signatures found on first and second page, the petitioner would be deprived of the fundamental right of effectively defending his case. He would further contend that the order impugned is perverse and the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, prayed to allow the revision.

6. On the other hand, Sri O.Uday Kumar, learned counsel for respondent justified the impugned order and while reiterating the contents of the counter would contend that since vakalat and written statement cannot be the authenticated comparing material and since the registered sale deed is separated by a long time gap of six (06) years, the court below rightly dismissed the petition for want of valid authenticated comparing material and the same does not require interference of this Court. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition.

7. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

8. As rightly held by the learned trial Judge, the vakalat and written statement cannot be treated as an authenticated comparing material and that the other document sale deed since separated by a time gap of six (06) years cannot be said to be a contemporaneous document.

9. The specific defence set out by the petitioner in the suit is that the respondent obtained his signature on the right side bottom of blank stamp paper on 15.02.2018 and the respondent fabricated agreement of sale dated 15.02.2018 for forging his signature on the second page of the said agreement of sale.

10. The entire endeavour of the petitioner is that he wants to substantiate that he did not sign on the second page of the agreement of sale and if the signature found on the first page of the agreement of sale is compared with the one contained on the second page, it would emerge that the signature found on the second page is forged. Sending of the suit agreement of sale would be enough for the said purpose and no other comparing material is required for the said purpose. Hence, dismissing the petition for want of comparing material is unsustainable. It is also relevant here to note that the respondent too reported no objection in the counter filed by him before the trial Court for sending the document to handwriting expert, however for the purpose of comparing the same with admitted contemporaneous documents. Considering the purpose for which the document is sought to be sent to the expert, this Court is of the considered view that sending the agreement of sale would be enough for the purpose of comparing the signature found on first page of the document with that of the second page. No prejudice would cause to the other side if the document is sent to expert. Therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set aside.

11. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the order dated 14.07.2023 passed in I.A.No.1285 of 2022 in O.S.No.49 of 2021. Consequently, the I.A.No.1285 of 2022 in O.S.No.49 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudivada is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.