ORDER : 1. Defendant in the suit filed the above revision against the order dated 05.07.2022 in I.A. No. 435 of 2022 in O.S. No. 296 of 2014 on the file of Principal District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole. 2. Plaintiff filed the suit O.S. No. 296 of 2014 against the defendant seeking specific performance of agreement of sale dated 20.09.2013 or alternatively for refund of an amount of Rs. 19,70,000/- with 24% interest. 3. Defendant filed written statement and pleaded forgery. He also pleaded that defendant filed I.P. No. 52 of 2014 and showed one Katari Srinivasulu, as one of the respondents and in the said I.P. the schedule property is shown as one of the items; that the said Srinivasulu obtained his signature on empty 100 rupee non-judicial stamps as surety and also original documents of item Nos. 1 and 2 of schedule property and the said Srinivasulu took the services of plaintiff and got filed the present suit and thus, prayed to dismiss the suit. 4. When the suit was coming for further evidence of defendant, I.A. No. 435 of 2022 was filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send the agreement of sale dated 20.09.2013 to the expert for comparing the signatures on agreement of sale with the signatures on mortgage deed dated 23.07.2014 executed by defendant in favour of one Malempati Venkateswarlu. 5. Respondent/plaintiff filed counter opposing the application on the ground that defendant himself admitted his signature on suit agreement and there is no need to send the document for expert opinion. 6. By order dated 05.07.2022, the Court below dismissed the application on the ground that the application was filed seven years after filing written statement, that too, when the matter is coming up for further evidence of defendant. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed. 7. Heard Sri Pavan Kumar Pasupuleti, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri V. Nitesh, learned counsel for respondent. 8. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed. 7. Heard Sri Pavan Kumar Pasupuleti, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri V. Nitesh, learned counsel for respondent. 8. The Full Bench of composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Bande Siva Shankara Srinivasa Prasad vs. Ravi Surya Prakash Babu and Others, 2016 (2) ALD 1 while concurring the views of division bench in Janachaitanya Housing Ltd. vs. Divya Financiers, AIR 2008 A.P. 163 , came to the following conclusion: “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 vs. Divya Financiers, MANU/AP/0137/2008 : 2008 (3) ALT 409 (DB), 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.” 9. In Janachaitanya Housing Ltd. case, on reference the Division Bench of composite High of Andhra Pradesh held as follows: “9. In Janachaitanya Housing Ltd. case, on reference the Division Bench of composite High of Andhra Pradesh held as follows: “9. For the reasons aforementioned, we answer the reference thus: “No time could be fixed for filing applications under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for sending the disputed signature or writings to the handwriting expert for comparison and opinion and same shall be left open to the discretion of the court; for exercising such discretion when exigencies so demand, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the each case.” 10. In view of expressions in the above referred judgments, filing of application at belated stage is not a ground to dismiss the petition. The Court has to see the pleadings of the parties. In the case on hand, suit is one filed seeking specific performance and the defendant pleaded forgery. In the facts of the case, trial Court ought to have exercised jurisdiction vested with it. Since the court below failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested with it and dismissed the interlocutory application, this court is of the considered opinion that the order under revision is liable to set aside. 11. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed. Order dated 05.07.2022 in I.A. No. 435 of 2022 in O.S. No. 296 of 2014 on the file of Principal District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole is set aside. I.A. No. 435 of 2022 is allowed. The Court below shall send agreement of sale dated 20.09.2013 to the handwriting expert to compare the signatures disputed with the signatures on registered mortgage deed dated 23.07.2014 subject to payment of requisite fee and other ancillary costs, if any, by the defendant. The said exercise shall be completed within two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Since the suit is of the year 2014, after receipt of expert report, the trial Court shall dispose of the suit within two months thereafter. No costs. 12. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.