APHC010596732022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] FRIDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2218/2022 Between: Dr.orimpaty Mastanamma Mahesha ...PETITIONER AND C Lakshminarayana Reddy ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Y KOTESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent: 1. M R K CHAKRAVARTHY The Court made the following: 2 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2218 of 2022 O R D E R:- This Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the order dated 28.09.2022 in I.A.No.934 of 2022 in O.S.No.163 of 2017 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore. 2. The petitioner is the defendant. Suit was filed for Enforcement of Agreement of Sale dated 12.02.2013 said to have been executed by the Petitioner. The Petitioner filed her written statement disputing the claim and that the agreement of sale is a fabricated document. 3. In the course of trial, the Petitioner filed an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act to send the original registered sale date dated 24.02.2010 with the disputed suit document Ex.A.1 to Andhra Pradesh State Forensic Science Laboratory for handwriting expert opinion to substantiate the defence raised. The trial Court, on contest, dismissed the application on the ground that the sale deed of the year 2010 i.e. the comparable document is not a contemporaneous document for the agreement of sale dated 12.02.2013. Hence, the present revision petition. 3 4. Heard Sri Y.Koteswar Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri M.R.K.Chakravarthi, learned counsel for the Respondent. 5. The reasoning given by the trial Court that the three year gap between the comparable document with the suit agreement of sale cannot be said to be long enough, so as to bring any variation in signatures. Even in the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Bande Siva Shankara Srinivasa Prasad v. Ravi Surya Prakash babu and others1 it was held that ideally the documents within a period of 2 to 3 years can be sent for comparison, but also opined that there can be no hard and fast rule and it is for the expert to voice his conclusion. The paragraph 27 thereof is extracted below: “ 27. We accordingly answer the reference as under: It is essentially within the judicious discretion of the Court, depending on the individual facts and circumstances of the case before it, to seek or not to seek expert opinion as to the comparison of the disputed handwriting/signature with the admitted handwriting/signature under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Court is however not barred from sending the disputed handwriting/signature for comparison to an expert merely because the time gap between the admitted handwriting/signature and the disputed handwriting/signature is long. The Court must however endeavour to impress upon the petitioning party that comparison of disputed handwritings/signatures with admitted and writings/signatures, separated by a time lag of 2 to 3 years, would be desirable so as to facilitate expert 1 (2016) 2 ALT 248 (FB) 4 comparison in accordance with satisfactory standards. That being said, there can be no hard and fast rule about this aspect and it would ultimately be for the expert concerned to voice his conclusion as to whether the disputed handwriting/signature and the admitted handwriting/signature are capable of comparison for a viable expert opinion. The view expressed by the Division Bench in JANACHAITANYA HOUSING LIMITED v. DIVYA FINANCIERS1, as to the stage of the proceedings when an application can be moved by a party under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, continues to hold the field and there is no necessity for this Full Bench to address that issue.” 6. In view of the same, the order of the trial Court cannot be sustained. The civil revision petition is allowed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 07.02.2025 KLP