TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 775X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ignatures for comparison and expert opinion, can be entertained at the later stage, including when coming up for arguments after entire trial? When the revision petition came up for admission before a learned single Judge of this Court, it was pointed out the inconsistent views taken by two learned Judges of this Court for maintaining the applications filed seeking expert's opinion at the belated stage of arguments in Kaveti Sarada v. Vemineni Hymavati 2006 (4) ALT 56 , Pulaparti Sankuntala Bai v. Mygapula Ramanjaneyulu 2006(3)ALD146 and Guru Govindu v. Devarapu Venkataramana 2006 (6) ALT 17 . 2. Before we proceed to answer the reference, we must say the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 for revising the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n which basis reference is made by the learned single Judge. It is convenient to consider the submissions in the light of the judgments, which were referred in the order of reference. 4. At this stage, we lightly touch the facts in the cases referred to above before answering the reference. In Kaveti Sarada 2006 (4) ALT 56, the plaintiff filed suit for recovery of a sum on the basis of a pronote. After examining the witnesses on behalf of the plaintiff, the defendant filed IA under Order 26 Rule 10 CPC r/w Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act with a prayer to send pronote to the hand-writing expert for comparing the signature thereon with her (defendant) signatures in the vakalat, written statement, deposition etc., The trial cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t's opinion, after the concerned witness has been examined in chief and cross; renders the very exercise, almost futile. The witness would not be available for being confronted with the evidence.... The trial Court has already expressed its view, that it can undertake comparison of that document, by itself, under Section 73 of the Act. It is not as if the opportunity for examination of the document, through expert, is closed, once for all. In case, the Court itself finds the necessity of sending the document for expert's opinion, after undertaking a comparison, by itself, it shall always be open to do so. However, this exercise can be undertaken only by the Court, on its own accord, and after recording cogent reasons. disp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atement is presented. There may be instances where the necessity to file such application would arise after the oral evidence of certain witnesses is over. In case, the party concerned is able to elicit necessary information or admissions during the course of evidence, the necessity to file an application under Section 45 of the Act may not arise. Nothing prevents the party to a suit to file an application under Section 45 of the Act, even at the stage of arguments. So far as the second observation is concerned, the very same learned Judge held as under: ...it is always competent for the Court to undertake comparison of signatures of disputed document by itself. The opinion rendered by an expert is only a supporting material and canno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to deletion of Order 18 Rule 17(A), namely, even before insertion of Order 18 Rule 17-A, the Court had inbuilt power to permit parties to produce evidence not known to them earlier or which could not be produced in spite of due diligence. Order 18 Rule 17-A did not create any new right but only clarified the position. Therefore, deletion of Order 18 Rule 17-A does not disentitle production of evidence at a later stage. On a party satisfying the court that after exercise of due diligence that evidence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced at the time the party was leading evidence, the court may permit leading of such evidence at a later stage on such terms as may appear to be just would apply to the deletion of Order 18 R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
