ORDER : This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the orders passed by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, in I.A.No.1846 of 2014 in O.S.No.250 of 2005 wherein and whereby learned trial Judge dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code and refused to send agreement of sale dated 05.01.2003 to the Government Handwriting Expert for comparison and opinion. 2. The case of the petitioners/plaintiffs in brief before the trial Court is that they filed suit against the respondents for recovery of possession wherein R1 filed written statement by way of counter claim stating that petitioner No.1 executed possessory agreement of sale dated 05.01.2003 in favour of R1. It is the contention of the petitioners that first petitioner never executed any agreement of sale and signatures on the alleged agreement of sale are forged, which brought into existence by R1, which they also mentioned in the rejoinder filed to the counter claim of the respondents. They further submit that in order to prove that the signatures in the alleged agreement of sale dated 05.01.2003 are forged one, they filed petition to send document to Government Forensic Expert for comparison of signatures with admitted signatures of first petitioner. They further stated that they could not file similar petition due to Samaikya Andhra Agitation and previously similar petition filed by them was dismissed for default as their advocate could not attend the Court in view of the agitation. They pray to send the agreement of sale dated 05.01.2003 to Government Handwriting Expert for comparison with admitted signatures of first petitioner for his opinion. 3. The respondents have filed counter before trial Court denying the averments in the affidavit of the first petitioner. It is the contention of the first respondent/D1 that petition filed by the petitioners is highly belated one. He submits that the agreement of sale is dated 05.01.2003, whereas the present petition is filed after lapse of 11 years to compare the admitted signatures which is not permissible under law and petition is filed nine years after filing of the suit and after adducing evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and when the matter is coming up for defendant side evidence. He prays to dismiss the petition. 4. He prays to dismiss the petition. 4. After hearing both sides, the learned trial Judge dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners on the ground that evidence of an expert can only be considered as corroborative evidence to decide truth or genuineness of disputed sale agreement, it is not only option that is left to the parties to send the document to the expert and it is for the defendants, who made counter claim to prove disputed document of sale agreement. It is also observed that previously similar petition filed by the petitioners was closed for which petitioners have not taken any steps to reopen the same and came up with another petition, which is not maintainable. 5. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned trial Judge, petitioners have preferred the present revision petition stating that the orders passed by the learned trial Judge are contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. They submit that the trial Judge ought to have considered that delay itself cannot be a ground to dismiss the petition seeking prayer to send the disputed document to handwriting expert for his opinion. It is also the contention of revision petitioners that learned trial Judge ought to have taken into consideration that the advocate could not be present before the Court for few occasions due to Samaikya Andhra Agitation that was going on at a particular period if petition is allowed, no prejudice will be caused to the respondents/defendants. They pray to allow the revision petition. 6. I have heard both sides. 7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners Mr.Sai Gangadhar Chamarthy, would submit that delay alone is not a criteria to reject the application filed under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act and when the respondents have filed counter claim basing on alleged agreement of sale and when the petitioners have denied its execution and also signatures of first petitioner contained in it by filing counter claim. He would further submit that learned trial Judge ought not have dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners. He relied on the following precedent law:- 1. Bande Siva Shankara Srinivasa Prasad Vs. Ravi Surya Prakash Babu (died) per L.Rs. He would further submit that learned trial Judge ought not have dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners. He relied on the following precedent law:- 1. Bande Siva Shankara Srinivasa Prasad Vs. Ravi Surya Prakash Babu (died) per L.Rs. and others, 2016(2) ALT 248 (F.B.), wherein it is held at para – 15, which reads as under: “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 handwritings/signatures, separated by a time lag of 2 to 3 years, would be desirable so as to facilitate expert 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/s. Divya Financiers(1 supra), 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.” 2. Janachaitanya Housing Ltd. Vs. Divya Financiers, 2008(3) ALT 409 (D.B.), wherein it is held that ‘No time be fixed for filing applications seeking Expert Opinion and an application can be filed even at the stage of arguments if circumstances of the case so demand discretion of Court to deal with such application cannot be controlled by hard and fast rules‘. The said decision is also considered by Full Bench of this Court in Bande Siva Shankara Srinivasa Prasad’s case (referred supra), which was approved by Full Bench. The said decision is also considered by Full Bench of this Court in Bande Siva Shankara Srinivasa Prasad’s case (referred supra), which was approved by Full Bench. It is also held that the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in Janachaitanya Housing Limited’s case still continues to hold the field and there is no dissenting view expressed by a co-ordinate Bench warranting examination thereof by the Full Bench. 8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners also submits that contemporaneous signatures of first petitioner/first plaintiff available with the petitioners to send the same to handwriting expert along with agreement of sale dated 05.01.2003 having disputed signatures of first petitioner. He prays to allow the Civil Revision Petition. 9. The learned counsel Mr.M.Achyut, representing Ms.Sindoora V.N.L., learned counsel for the respondents would submit that there is unexplained delay in filing petition to send documents to handwriting expert, which petition is filed nearly nine years after filing of the suit, due to that it cannot be entertained, which rightly done by learned trial Judge. He relied on decision in P.Padmanabhaiah Vs. G.Srinivasa Rao, 2017(1) ALT 710 , wherein this Court held that ?trial Court did not advert to any of the relevant aspects and failed to deal with the material contentions of the plaintiffs and simply allowed the petition, just on mere asking of the defendants and thereby set aside the orders passed by the trial Court. It is also observed that when there are no signatures of comparable and assured standard on the material record before the trial Court, it is unsafe to obtain the signatures of the defendant in open Court and send the same signatures and also his vakalat and written statement to an expert for obtaining his opinion after comparison of the signatures thereon with the disputed signatures on the suit promissory note, which opinion is not going to be help the trial Court for effective adjudication of the lis.” He prays to dismiss the petition. 10. Now, the issue that emerges for consideration by this Court is: "Whether the orders under challenge are sustainable, tenable and whether the same warrants any interference of this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India?" 11. POINT: Before going to the merits of the case, it would be beneficial to quote Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act, which reads as under: “45. POINT: Before going to the merits of the case, it would be beneficial to quote Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act, which reads as under: “45. Opinions of experts.—When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law or of science or art, or as to identity of handwriting [or finger impressions], the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, [or in questions as to identity of handwriting] [or finger impressions] are relevant facts. Such persons are called experts.” 12. In the present case, petitioners have filed suit against the respondents for recovery of possession, wherein admittedly respondents/defendants have filed counter claim seeking relief of specific performance of contract in pursuance of possessory agreement of sale dated 05.01.2003. For which, petitioners have filed rejoinder before trial Court denying execution of agreement of sale by first petitioner in favour of D1 and they specifically pleaded that signatures contained in possessory agreement of sale dated 05.01.2003 are forged one. To prove their contention, petitioners intended to send agreement of sale dated 05.01.2003 to Government Handwriting Expert for comparison with admitted-signatures of first petitioner. It is the contention of the learned counsel the revision petitioners that contemporaneous documents containing the signatures of first petitioner are available with the petitioners, which they intended to file before the trial Court along with other admitted signatures available in the trial Court to send the same for comparison with the signatures contained in agreement of sale dated 05.01.2003. The Full Bench of this Court in Bande Siva Shankara Srinivasa Prasad‘s case (referred supra) and Division bench of this Court in Janachaitanya Housing Ltd‘s case (referred supra) held that seeking expert opinion at belated stage alone is not a ground to reject the prayer when facts and circumstances of the case requires opinion of handwriting expert. On perusal of orders passed by learned trial Judge, which shows that petitioners have examined P.Ws.1 to 3 in the suit and thereafter they filed petition to send the disputed document to handwriting expert for comparison with admitted signatures and opinion, which petition was dismissed by learned trial Judge by discussing the evidentiary value of expert opinion, which is not necessary to be discussed in the petition filed by the petitioners, which has to be considered after receiving expert opinion and at the time of final disposal of the case. The learned trial Judge not right in discussing appreciation of expert opinion without seeking opinion of handwriting expert with regard to signatures in agreement of sale dated 05.01.2003. Then, only ground remains on which learned trial Judge refused to entertain the petition filed by the petitioners is delay, which cannot be a ground to reject the prayer of the petitioners in view of authoritative ratio laid down by Full Bench of this Court in Bande Siva Shankara Srinivasa Prasad‘s case (referred supra). After considering the nature of the disputes between the parties and as the petitioners have specifically pleaded in their pleadings disputing the signature of the first petitioner in agreement of sale dated 05.01.2003, the learned trial Judge ought to have allowed the petition filed by the petitioners seeking expert opinion. 13. In view of discussions in preceding para, this Court is of the opinion that the orders passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the petition filed by the petitioners under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act read with Section 151 CPC are not sustainable in law or on facts, which are liable to be set aside. 14. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The petition filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs in I.A.No.1846 of 2014 in O.S.No.215 of 2005 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, is hereby allowed. The petitioners/plaintiffs shall file contemporaneous document as defined in Bande Siva Shankara Srinivasa Prasad Vs. Ravi Surya Prakash Babu (died) per L.Rs and others’ case (referred supra) having signature of first petitioner and thereafter the learned trial Judge shall also send documents containing admitted signatures of first petitioner on the vakalat, plaint and rejoinder along with agreement of sale dated 05.01.2003 to handwriting expert, Andhra Pradesh State Forensic Science Laboratory, Mangalagiri, or Government Handwriting Expert at Hyderabad, or any other expert with the consent of both sides for comparison of admitted and disputed signatures of first petitioner in the said documents. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. Interim orders if any, are hereby stand vacated.