(Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to revise/against the order dated 29-8-2005 in I.A.No.1387 of 2005 in O.S.No.61 of 1999 on the file of the court of the principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry.)

The petitioner filed O.S.No.61 of 1999 in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rejahmundry, against the respondents herein, for the relief of declaration of title, in respect of the suit schedule property. The recording of evidence on behalf of both the parties is said to have been concluded. When the suit is at the stage of arguments, respondents 1 to 3 herein, being defendants 20, 21 and 22, filed I.A.No.1387 of 2005 under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (for short the), to send the Xerox copies of Exs.B.13 and B.15 i.e., general power of attorney, dated 21.12.1988 and khararunama, dated 21.12.1988, for hand writing experts opinion. The application was resisted by the petitioner. Through its order, dated 29.08.2005, the trial Court allowed the I.A. The same is challenged in this Civil Revision petition.

Sri Satyanarayana Prasad, the learned senior counsel for he petitioner submits that the question of sending the Xerox copy of a document for the opinion of a hand writing expert is unknown to law. He contends that the occasion to invoke the power of the trial Court under Section 45 of thewould arise only when there exist a original document containing the disputed signatures and another document containing the undisputed signatures of the same person. He points out that in the instant case, none of the ingredients existed and the trial Court ordered the I.A. in a mechanical and routine manner.

Sri. O. Manohar Reddy, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents, on the other hand, submits that the only documents available for his clients, in the matter of verifying the signatures of the petitioner, were Exs.B.13 and B.15, and on being satisfied that the comparison of signatures on the said documents would help it in deciding the matter effectively, the trial Court ordered the I.A.

Section 45 of theenables the Court to obtain the opinion of an expert on various aspects, including the one relating to the comparison of disputed signatures. An expert would be in a position to render his opinion, only when the original of the document containing the disputed signature is forwarded to him. Further, there can be effective comparison and verification of the signatures, if only another document containing the undisputed signatures of the contemporary period are made available to the expert. In the instant case, respondents 1 to 3 filed Exs.B.13 and B.15, which are, admittedly, the Xerox copies of general power of attorney, dated 21.12.1988 and khararnama, dated 21.12.1988. It is rather incomprehensible that an expert would be able to undertake analysis of the imprint of a signature, on a Xerox copy.

The opinion of a hand writing expert involves the analysis of the slant, which a person uses in the matter of putting his signature, and in some cases, the point of time, at which it may have been subscribed. These analyses would become possible only vis- -vis an original signature; and the signature mark on a Xerox copy of a document can never constitute the basis.

It is rather surprising that the trial Court did not undertake any discussion, worth its name, and simply allowed the application. Except that the trial Court named the hand writing expert, it did not add a word, touching on the merits or demerits of the mater. The order reads as under:

Heard. In the circumstances of the case, the petitioner shall be allowed to send Ex.P.13 and P.15 to Mr. Ashok Kashyap for examination with admitted and specimen signatures of first respondent.

The trial Court ought to have exhibited little more attention to the matter.

For the foregoing reasons, the Civil Revision petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.1387 of 2005 shall stand dismissed. It is made clear that in case, respondents 1 to 3 are in possession of any original documents of Exs.B.13 and B.15, it shall be open to them to renew the request. Since the suit is of the year 1999, it cannot brook any further delay. The trial Court shall endeavour to dispose of the same, within a period of one (1) month, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to cost.