K. S. SHRIVASTAV, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the judgment passed by the Principal subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Saroor Nagar, Hyderabad in Small cause Suit No. 7 of 1995 dated 08-8-1996 whereby the suit for recovery of rs. 5,000/- with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum has been decreed against the petitioner-defendant.

( 2 ) THE respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 5,000/- on the basis of the receipt Ex. A-1 dated 05-09-1990. The petitioner-defendant has specifically denied to have executed the receipt Ex. A.-1 and has pleaded that it is a forged document.

( 3 ) THE trial Court observing that the petitioner-defendant did not examine the hand writing expert in an attempt to prove that the receipt Ex. A-1 is a forged document, compared the admitted signatures of the petitioner-defendant on his Vakalat with the disputed signature on the document Ex. A-1 and reached the conclusion that the signature of the person on Ex. A-1 is similar to the signature of the petitioner-defendant in his Vakalat and concluded that the petitioner-defendant has executed the document Ex. A-1 in favour of the respondent-plaintiff and decreed the suit as prayed for.

( 4 ) WHEN the petitioner-defendant has specifically denied his signature on the receipt Ex. A-1 and claimed that it is a forged document, it was for the respondent-plaintiff to prove the signature of the petitioner-defendant on the receipt Ex. A-1 by examining the witnesses to this document and/or by examining the handwriting expert. The lower Court has wrongly placed the burden on the petitioner-defendant to disprove his signature on the document ex. A-1 by examining the handwriting expert.

( 5 ) IN the case of Khamarunnissa vs. Fazal Hussain, it is held by a Single Judge of this Court as follows:"the law is settled that the recourse to Section 73 should be in extreme cases where the parties will be unable to prove the handwriting and signature through the above procedure and the ends of justice will fail if recourse is not taken to Section 73 of the Evidence Act. Such a provision should be taken recourse by the Courts in the rarest of the rare cases only to meet the ends of justice and not in a routine manner and unless in the absence of any other evidence produced by the parties. The Courts cannot supplement what the parties fail. It can only judicially supplement it by adopting a method permissible in law. It must be noted with concern and caution that any such course adopted by the Courts would instead of serving the ends of justice may defeat the same. "

( 6 ) I am in complete agreement with the view expressed in the case of khamarunnissa and it is well settled that although it is permissible for the courts to compare the handwriting, it is generally a hazardous test and it should not be resorted to except in clearest cases without the aid of experts.

( 7 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that the impugned judgment suffers from material irregularity and therefore it is liable to be set aside.

( 8 ) IN result, the revision petition is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the lower Court are set aside and the case is remanded to the lower Court viz. , Principal Subordinate Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Saroor Nagar, hyderabad with a direction to obtain the sample signatures of the petitioner-defendant in his presence and to send the same with the disputed signature of the petitioner-defendant on Ex. A-1 to the handwriting expert for comparison and opinion at the cost of the respondent-plaintiff and then to permit the parties to lead further evidence in support of their respective rival contentions and then to arrive at a decision, if required with the aid of section 73 of Evidence Act. The cost of the expenses of the expert shall first be borne out by the respondent-plaintiff and in the event of his success, it may be added in the schedule of costs. The parties through their respective learned Counsel are directed t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document