It is relevant to note that the Calcutta High Court in Swamy Satyanand v. Rajiv Ranjan Kumar Singhr referring to the principle laid down by the Apex Court

...RespondenUPetitioner/Defendant lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 to grant stay of the order in 1.A.No.283 of 2025 in o.s.No. 11 of 2024 dated 18- 6A-ZOZS-on the file of the tAdditional District Judge, at Warangal, pending disposal of the CRP. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Nadipally Ananda Rao Counsel for the ResPondents The Court made the following : ORDER r HON'I}LE SRIJUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CIVIL R|IVISION PETITION No.3396 OF 2025 ORDER Heard Sri ltladipally Ananda Rao, leamed counsel for the petltloner

2. Despite Service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent

3. 1'he petitic,ner herein has filed a suit vide O.S.No. 1l of 2024 against the respondent herein seeking specific performance of agreement ol sale dated 08.12.2021. In the said suit, respondent/defendant had filed written statement contending that the said agreement of sale dated 08.12.2021 is a fake one and she has disputed her signature on the said agreement of sale. According to the leamed counsel for the petitioner, trial Courl has framed issues and posted the suit for trial.

4. The respondent had filed an application under section 45 of the Indian Evidence' Act, 1872, vide 1.A.No.283 of 2025 in O.S.No. I 1 of 2021 contendinll that she is disputing her signature on the said agreement of sale, lated 08.12.2021 on the non-judicial stamp paper \ "--I - \ 2 dated 08.02.202 l. Therefore, to prove the said contention, the said agreement of sale has to be sent to an expert for opinion.

5. The petitioner opposed the said application contending that the said application was filed at initial stage. It has to be fired after examination of witnesses.

6. Vide impugned order, dated lg.1O.2O25,learned I Additional District Judge, warangal, allowed the said application holding rhat the respondent/defendant contended that she never executed any document in favour of the ptaintilf and she disputed her signatures on the said agreement of sale, the said non judicial stamp paper does not belong to her, therefbre, it has to be sent to an Expert for opinion. Accordingly, the trial Court sent the non judicial stamp paper/ agreement of sale dated 08. 12.2021 to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) along with the admitted signatures of the defendant, lor comparison and opinion. challenging the said order, the petitioner filed the present revision.

7. It is the specific contention of the petitioner hereir/plaintiff that the trial court has framed issues in the said suit and posted the suit for trial. Therefore, the respondent/defendant filed an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, to send the said --v r J agreement of sakr on non_judicial stamp paper dated 0g.02.202 I for comparison ancl opinion. [t is a pre_mature stage. Without considering the same, Iearned rial Court had allowed the said application.

8. For the sake of convenience, the relevant provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, tg72 areextracted below: "45. Opinions of experts_ _When the Courl has to fcrrm an opinion upon a point of fbrcign larv. o1 6f5gigncc. or art, or as to idertity ol hantlwritin-e or flneer impressions, the opinions up{m that point of persons spccially skilled in such loreign larv. science or afi, or in qucstions as to identity ol- hrndn.riting or fingcr in.rpressions are relcvant facts. Such porsons are called experts... "73. Com a rtson of si nature writin or seal with others ad mitfed orD roved.-[n order to ascertain whelher a srgnaturc. rvriting. or seal is that of the person by whom i1 purports to have been written or rnade, any signature, writing or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been rvritten or made by that person may be compared rr ith the one rvhich is to be proved. although that signature. u riting, or seal has not been produced or proved fbr any' othcr pi,rryose. The Court rnay direct any person present in Court to rvritc anv uords or figures for the purpose of enabling the Coun lo cot))p.1rc tlre *ords or ligurr..s so written * i,t uny words or fisur:s allcged to havc bcen rvritten by such person. 4 'lhis section applies also, rvith any necessary modifications, to finger-impressions."

9. It is relevant to note that Section 45 of the Act, 1872, inter alia, provid,es that the Court can call for evidence of experts to form an opinion regarding the genuineness of signatures and handwriting which are relied on by one party and disputed by another party. It is also relevant to note that the power to seek expert opinion under Section 45 of the Act, 1872 is discretionary and depends on facts of each case. The Courts under Section 73 of the Act, 1872 can themselves compare the signatures or handwriting. However, the Supreme Courl has time and again cautioned that Coufts cannot act as experts in all the cases. Unless it is glaringly clear that the signatures are same or are diff'erent, the Courts should normally call for an opinion from the experts.

10. It is relevant to note that the Calcutta High Court in Swamy Satyanand vs. Rajiv Ranjan Kumar Singhr referring to the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Dayamati Bai vs. K.M. Shaffi2 held as follows:- _ hr this apphcation in decidrng the propner] ofrhe sard ordcr it has 1(l bc seerr as lo whether the learned Court beloq waslusrrficd in entertainrng fte said apphcarron and drrccting appornrment ofan expert 1() €xamine rhe sard '! 20 r2 (3) CLJ 600 2 zoo+ 1tl scc 107 ) 5 srgnatures rr has ro bc kepr rn rnind rulr rhc rriar has not bcgun and thc subjecr documenl rs lcr to be tcndercd and produced in cvrdenoe Mo':otcr rrrc pe(rrronc. has ra,s"d siror,s oblecui,,i tr,,r, ,.gura ,o tt" ,dmrssrhirily orlhc said documcnt on varrou: grounds tncludrng tn5umcrcnc] oi "irp ,lr,t'p"O on lhe sard document The doc,mcnrs, rvirh whr(h rhc quesrioned doeu"menr ,, ,i,,..,.J,,, ;; .";;;,J; and examrned. is atso nor on rcoord In mv ric''. lvhen !uch rssu.s arc-rn"orved and rhc quo,io, or uJriiiJt"ir,,l ot thc 5ard docunrenr on rhc ground rhar rhe said docunjDr rs rirsed. r,rne,rea ara rn'u r.re"iii -.i".r.ii^.t..onsidcredarfieslaceor. marl,,ns ,uch documelr d ,n ...t,t,r ana \hiLl i\,uc ;, ,.q,,,*a ," i,. a..,,1(d dt thr .tdgc $h(n thc \ard documenr rs soughr 1rr bc rEndcred as an crhibrr. fhe tr,uf-rragJ aiihe-na. niui*,ryn" or,r"h documenrs and marking rhe said docunrenr: as c\hib;rs cnutd c\"r,* ,r,. ,",a qr".i." ;-J;;;;rp."rr,r. in cxercise of il. po\ cr under Sc. tior \ lj .t I rnJ 7J i,t.t lh( lndrzl l.!rdenc(n.t. Ig,: "r,ters "r"ur,,rri"g In thc facts and ctrcumstixrces ofthc Lase, tr was opcn for the plalnttlt to obtatn a]lv e\pan optnton on the qxcsrioned do^cunents Lndependenrry 1,,r lhe purpo\c Jr ,i; .i"^ #ure suit trt ar this srage havrns rcgard 1() the fact that thcre arc serrous queslons rarsed wrth rcgard-o thc admissrbilrry ol lhe iilid docr,nrcnr lh. trial Cou( coutd nor tave. before n::l9lli *. ,,"ia ,..r., ai?*"a ,ip,r"',';r of an erperr to compare rhe an] orher a(tmilted signatures ns.\ras drrclreO rn rhc rnrp'ugnea oraer dared l.tlh Junc,20, l.hc :iClrlr* "1,h opposrre panies urged thar (he ongrnat_or rhr sa,a agreernenr t as tein rii.i,, ,f," t orn *a. *.ordrngly, u,irlmur anv ordcr bcins passed b! rhc rearned court. thc slard docume;,-.;;r;;;;;; ;;, *. rhe precrncr ofrhe coun premiscs even iflhe Drarnri[r \ran'.rhc\ar(rdo!"n''.*au."t^.,Jtf'"r.,.0*,n.r",rr,rrcsubs(ancernrhe said argumenr. Srncc th,: sar,l docunrenr rln rhe cusll \ Cr,,"'i ,,"rfii. opcn lor rhe opposrre parl cs ro filc appropriarc apptrcalron t)cfbre the rrrat (.oun for an] ,r.h *";r,;"u,,; ,,;;h quci.onrd {tocumenl b\ aD\ such person or insrilurion ctsrnnnr h hc an e\pcrl on lhe lietd ,5 rhc rriaf C."r. ,i^ ,i,l"f ii*i;";::il, il; \uch aDnhcatron bcrne rnadc rhe tral (.,,nn uoulJ con\rd" ,fr..r,O f"..,,,,'if,. uflo\rrr parrc\ rn accordanL( \vith law..The Coufl ar thrs 5rage cannnt tbmr an) oprnron .*ri a ,i.'=.rr,ncncss of th. signar,rc tnlhc course ot-thc lriat, rt woul(t atwa).s bc opcn tor tire Court ."""-,,; ;;; ar cxpcn oprnron on lhc questroned documents rr'(hc cou,, fiD.rs rr rereranl and rcquircd ro. prop.. ua1r,r"".u nt thc r(sues involLcd rn the surt lhe power rh.r hai bcen exercrsed ty tr," t,iurtor"-ur ih; ;d;,;;;,a be e\erc^cd after thc:aid document is produced rn cvrr ence either at the in.t-.. ottf," p"nl., o. rr,, iorri" "fifr. ",in -n"r," _'_'_' Ih( learned Coun\ct for rltr n(rrlr,rner. ro mt mard. rs correct in hrs conlcnrion thal rhe slaqe haj nol arrived tbr rlt( Courr to hale an e\l)e( ,lrnr,, on sLrch queshoncd documcllts and sre;riur", f n. r",A or,l.l. if allorved ro stand mav be preludgrng rhe islue and \rould resuf, ," "r,*"ma. oilrrr*-, 1 l. Coming to the case on hand, as rightly contended by the leamed counsel lor tl.re petitioner/ptaintiff, the said suit is posted for trial framing of isr;ues. The trial couft has to record evidence of parties and thereaftt:r, the defendant has to file the said application to send the said agreement of sale dated 0g. r2.2o2r executed on non_ .judicial stamp paper dated 09.2.202 I for comparison and opinion. Without considerin;g the said aspect, vide impugned order dated

18.08.2025 I.A.No.ltg2 of 2OZS,learned trial Courr direcred to send the said agreement ,f sare dated rg.r2.2o2r to the f orensic science Laboratory along with the admitted signatures of the defendanr fbr 6 comparison and opinion. The trial court did not speciff with regard to the admitted signatures ot the defendant,, for comparison and opinion' The trial Couft has to specifically state with regard to' sending the admitted signatures of the defendant either from the written statement or vakalath etc.

12. Learned trial court did not specify the details of Forensic Science Laboratory viz, Central or State and place etc'

13. Viewed from any angle, the impugned order dated 18.08.2025 passed in I.A.No'283 of 2025 in O'S'No'11 of 2024 by I AdditionalDistrictJudge,Warangal,isonconsiderationoftheabove stated aspects. Thus, the same is tiable to be set aside and accordingly' the same is set aside.

14. In the light of the aforesaid discussion' this revision is allowed. The order dated l8'08'2025 passed in I'A'No'283 of 2025 in O.S.No.l I of 2024 by t Additionat District Judge' Warangaf is set aside and the same is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the respondent/defendant to renew the request by filing an application at an appropriate stage to send the said agreement of sale dated 18.12.2021 to Expert lor opinion. Leamed trial Courl to decide the same in accordance with law. I 7 Consequently, stand closed. pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall //TRUE COPYII SD/- T. SRIDEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR \ F \-___- i Ecrtoru oFFrcER To, t

1. The the I Additional District Judge, Warangal. 2. One CC to Sri Nadipally Ananda Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies Svs/nvb SIAIt s$ tffi .) (-) i .-l: Sr.rrC,-\Y. -t (;) }4 .// HIGH COURT DATED:2511012025 ORDER CRP.No.3396 of 2025 ALLOWING THE CRP %o