Judgment:
ORDER
P.S. Narayana, J.
1. Heard Sri Rajesham, the counsel representing the revision petitioner.
2. This Court ordered notice before admission on 20-7-2005 and granted interim stay for a limited period, which had been subsequently extended. The respondent was duly served and none represents the respondent.
3. The revision petitioner filed I.A. No. 575 of 2005 in O.S. No. 8 of 2002 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur to send the suit promissory note to the Government Laboratory, Hyderabad for the purpose of ascertaining the age of the signature with the other handwriting of the suit promissory note. The application was dismissed on the ground that there is no possibility of comparison of age of the ink in view of using ball point pen ink in drafting the pronote and hence no purpose would be served by sending the suit pronote to handwriting expert for comparison with regard to the age of the ink. The learned Judge also observed that the application is not maintainable. Though wrong provision of law had been quoted inasmuch as specific prayer had been prayed for, for sending the suit pronote to handwriting expert to ascertain the age of the signature and the age of the ink in the remaining portion of the pronote, this is an application filed for sending the suit document to handwriting expert and hence the view expressed by the learned Judge that the application is not maintainable, cannot be sustained. No doubt, the learned Judge recorded certain reasons.
4. As can be seen from the respective contentions of the parties, the revision petitioner, as defendant, had taken a specific stand in relation to the obtaining of signatures in blank pronotes. This defence cannot be said to be one which had been put forth as an afterthought but one taken at the earliest point of time. In the written statement itself the said stand had been taken. It is no doubt true that the suit is of the year 2002 and the petitioner could have thought of moving the present application at an early date.
5. The learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner placed strong reliance on a decision of this Court in M.R. Swarajyalakshmi v. P. Satyanarayana : 1999(1)ALD210 wherein the learned Judge observed that the dismissal of application for sending a document for the opinion of the expert on the ground that it is a belated one is not proper and at the best the other side may be compensated by imposing costs.
6. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on yet another decision in Uppu Jhansi Lakshmi Bai v. J. Venkateshwara Rao : AIR1994AP90 wherein the learned Judge held that where the allegation of the defendant is that the plaintiff-creditor had fabricated the signature of the attestor which is in a different ink and the fabrication was alleged to be done while filing suit whereas promissory note was actually executed earlier in the village of the defendant, maker of the pronote, which is outside the jurisdiction of the Court, the opinion of the handwriting expert is not totally an irrelevant factor for adjudication of dispute and hence his opinion is sought for in determining the age of the disputed handwriting.
7. As can be seen from the facts of the case, the defence of the petitioner-Penumastha Ramachandra Raju is that one Suraksha Finance Company obtained his signatures on blank pronotes when he borrowed vehicle loan and due to the disputes with the managing partner of the finance company, these documents were fabricated and in view of the same it would be just and proper to send the suit pronote to handwriting expert to ascertain the age of the signature and also the age of the ink in the remaining portion of the pronote.
8. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the purpose for which the revision petitioner, as defendant, intends to send the pronote to an expert, in the light of the defence taken by him in the written statement, cannot be said to be foreign or irrelevant to the questions in controversy, which the Court is expected to decide while deciding the suit. Hence, though this is a discretionary order, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Judge had not exercised the discretion properly, observing that no purpose would be served by sending the suit document, the pronote in question, to handwriting expert for comparison and also further observing that the application is not maintainable.
9. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the civil revision petition is allowed.