ORDER : This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner against the Order, dated 31.03.2023 passed in I.A.No.39 of 2021 in A.S No.43 of 2019 on the file of the Special Judge, POCSO Court, Ongole FAC-II Additional District Judge, Ongole (for short “the Court below”). 2. Heard Sri S.S. Rama Krishna Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Anup Koushik Karavadi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. The present impugned I.A.No.39 of 2021 in A.S No.43 of 2019 was filed by the petitioner under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act seeking to send Ex.A1 to the handwriting expert to compare the signatures on the Ex.A1 with the admitted signatures of the petitioner to prove the contest of the petitioner. 4. Originally the respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit basing on a forged and fabricated promissory note against him. It was fabricated before filing of the suit as if the borrowed amount of Rs.2,00,000/-from the respondent on 27.2.2015 for his family necessities. He did not execute the alleged promissory note on 27.2.2015 in favour of the respondent. The respondent forged his signatures and fabricated the suit promissory note. So it is just and necessary to send Ex.A1 to the handwriting expert to compare the signatures on Ex.A1 with his admitted signatures to prove his contest. Hence, the petitioner filed present I.A before the Court below. But the Court below has dismissed the said I.A. on the ground that no contemporary signatures of the petitioner signed in Telugu are filed and further mere sending the documents to the expert and receiving his opinion is not a conclusion proof and it is weak piece of evidence. Challenging the same, the present civil revision petition has been filed. 5. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents made in the affidavit, submits that, the Court below went wrong in observing that PW.1 to PW.4 are examined and after perusing the material available on record only the lower Court decreed the suit in favour of the respondent/plaintiff, that the executing of suit promissory note was proved by the plaintiff and there is a direct evidence. Further it is observed that he used to sign only in English, since from the beginning and as such the question of taking his signatures in the Open Court serves no purpose. Further it is observed that he used to sign only in English, since from the beginning and as such the question of taking his signatures in the Open Court serves no purpose. Further it was also observed that no contemporary signatures of the petitioner signed in Telugu are filed and mere sending the documents to the expert and receiving his opinion is not a conclusion proof and it is weak piece of evidence is against the established principles of law. The said finding is very highly untenable. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to set aside the impugned order and pass appropriate orders. 6. To support his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad reported in Mudi Reddy Tirupathi Reddy Vs. T. Linga Reddy and another, 2015 (6) ALT 512 (S.B.), wherein it was held that : ……the application was filed after the matter was posted for arguments. Since the Division Bench of this Court in JANACHAITANYA’s case (1 supra) had held that no hard and fast rule controlling the discretion of the Court to send a disputed document or writing for opinion of the expert. I am of the view that the Court below cannot reject it on mere ground that it was filed at that stage. When the entire case rests upon the question whether the disputed document was executed by the respondents or not, in my considered opinion, the Court below is not right, in not referring the said document to an expert. 12. Coming to the question whether the evidence on record is sufficient to come to the said conclusion or not, in my considered opinion, at the stage of deciding whether or not to refer a document to an expert, it is not proper for the Court to express an opinion as to whether the other evidence on record, is sufficient or not. If such opinion is expressed at this stage, it might amount to prejudging the suit. 13. Coming to the question whether the Court itself ought to compare the signatures or writings on the document, reference may be made to Section 45 of the Act as well as Section 73 of the Act. Section 45 of the Act which states as under; 45. 13. Coming to the question whether the Court itself ought to compare the signatures or writings on the document, reference may be made to Section 45 of the Act as well as Section 73 of the Act. Section 45 of the Act which states 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. Section 73 of the Act which states as under; 73. Comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved-In order to ascertain whether a signature, writing or seal is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written or made, any signature, writing, or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written or made by that person may be compared with the one which is to be proved, although that signature, writing, or seal has not been produced or proved for any other purpose. The Court may direct any person present in Court to write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare the words or figures so written with any words or figures alleged to have been written by such person. 7. He also relied upon another decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Manorama Naik vs. State of Odisha and another, 2022 Live Law (SC) 297, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that, as per Section 45, when the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of as to identity of handwriting etc., opinion given by persons specially skilled in such matters is relevant, so the 1st appellate Court ought to have allow the petition and disputed signature along with the signature of the defendant after obtaining the same in open Court it has to be sent to be expert.” 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent has proved the execution of Ex.A1 promissory note by way of examining PW.1 to PW.4 and the lower court has also held that the petitioner failed to discharge his burden. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent has proved the execution of Ex.A1 promissory note by way of examining PW.1 to PW.4 and the lower court has also held that the petitioner failed to discharge his burden. Further submits that the petitioner is not entitled to seek to send the signatures on Ex.A1 to handwriting expert since they are in Telugu and it is his case in the written statement that he never signs in Telugu and the lower Court dealt with subject at length and categorically held that the petitioner failed to discharge his burden. He further submits that there are no grounds to send the signatures to handwriting expert since the handwriting experts report is not conclusion. Hence prayed to dismiss the present civil revision petition. 9. On perusing the material available on record, this Court observed that, the Court below failed to observe that the forgery made by the plaintiff is a clear forgery because, he clearly put the signature in Telugu Language even though this defendant always signs in English and he is a Government employee and he never signs in Telugu, in order to escape from the comparison by a handwriting expert. Further, the first appellate Court should have accepted the contention of the petitioner and allowed the petition. The appellate Court failed to appreciate and failed to see the legal provisions of law under CPC and Evidence Act. 10. It is pertinent to mention here that, as per Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act, reads as under : Section 45 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 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 35 [or finger impressions], the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, 36 [or in questions as to identity of handwriting] 35 [or finger impressions] are relevant facts. Such persons are called experts. 11. In a case of Venkatswamy v. Agiru Pullaiah, 2012 (6) ALD 520 , this Court held that the delay in filing an application for expert is a good ground for rejection of the same. But in that decision, the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Janachaitanya Housing Limited v. Divya Financiers, 2008 (3) ALT 409 , was not noticed. In a case of Venkatswamy v. Agiru Pullaiah, 2012 (6) ALD 520 , this Court held that the delay in filing an application for expert is a good ground for rejection of the same. But in that decision, the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Janachaitanya Housing Limited v. Divya Financiers, 2008 (3) ALT 409 , was not noticed. Therefore, the said decision cannot be said to represent the correct position of law and therefore it is not being followed. 12. In Chidara Uma Maheswara Rao v. Methuku Janardhan, 2013 (6) ALT 806 , wherein, this Court upheld the order passed by the trial Court in refusing to refer the signature on a disputed document to an expert on the ground that the trial Court had observed that the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 4 was already available on record is sufficient; that this Court had concluded that there was no jurisdictional error in the order of the Court below warranting interference with the same. 13. Whenever a party disputes the signature on a particular document, two remedies are open to him, either to request the Court to compare the signatures or to file an application to send the document to the expert for comparison. When the petitioner opted to file an application to send the document to the handwriting expert, no prejudice will be caused to either party. When he is asserting that the signature is that of the said party, even though there is a gap between the disputed signatures and admitted signatures, a science has been developed to compare such signatures also by taking into consideration the direction of the strokes, the speed of writing, the pattern of writing etc., therefore, it cannot be said that no useful purpose will be served by sending the document to the expert. After comparison, if the similarities of the disputed signature and the admitted signatures are very negligible, then the Court can formulate its opinion with the assistance of the expert’s report and by comparing the signatures whether the report has to be accepted or not. After comparison, if the similarities of the disputed signature and the admitted signatures are very negligible, then the Court can formulate its opinion with the assistance of the expert’s report and by comparing the signatures whether the report has to be accepted or not. But, if the opportunity is denied to the defendant and if the matter is carried to the appellate Court, there is every likelihood of commenting that he did not avail the opportunity of filing an application for sending the document for handwriting expert’s opinion, if he is so sure that the disputed signature does not belong to him. In view of the circumstances, I am of the view that it is essential to send the document to the expert for comparison at the request of the party in the interests of justice, which cannot cause any amount of prejudice to the plaintiffs in the present suit, therefore, the order of the lower Court is liable to be set aside. 14. No doubt, the petitioner has not explained the reasons for the delay in his application, but the Court below should have considered the same by imposing some costs. Originally, the litigation should not be terminated by default, either of the plaintiff or the defendant. The cause of justice does require that as far as possible adjudication is done on merits. Further, if the application of the petitioner is not considered, the rights of the petitioner will be affected. 15. Therefore, in view of the above, this Court is inclined to allow the present revision petition by imposing costs on the petitioner. 16. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned Order, dated 31.03.2023 passed in I.A.No.39 of 2021 in A.S No.43 of 2019 passed by the Court below, on condition that the petitioner shall pay costs of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two thousand only) to the respondents within a period of two (02) weeks. Failing which, the impugned order passed by the Court below remained in force. Further, the trial Court is directed to send Ex.A1 to the handwriting expert for comparison, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and also directed to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.108of 2018, as expeditiously, as possible, preferably within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. 17. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.