(Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India to revise the order dated 06.07.2007 and made in I.A. No. 420/2007 in O.S. No. 56 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Rayachoty.)

The respondent filed O.S. No. 56 of 2005 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Rayachoty, against the petitioner, for recovery of certain amount, on the strength of a promissory note, of the year 2002. The petitioner filed written-statement, pleading inter alia that the promissory note was fabricated and forged. An issue was framed thereon.

The petitioner filed I.A. No. 606 of 2006, under Order 26 Rule 10-A C.P.C., with a prayer to send the disputed document for comparison by a Government Handwriting Expert. The I.A. was allowed, and the disputed documents, together with the specimen signatures of the petitioner, were sent for comparison. The handwriting expert insisted that the contemporaneous signatures of the petitioner be forwarded. The petitioner stated that there are no documents, of the year 2002, containing his signatures. The expert, in turn, returned the matter, expressing his inability. It was in this context, that the petitioner filed I.A. No. 420 of 2007, with a prayer to send the document to another expert. The respondent opposed the application. The Trial Court dismissed the I.A., through its order dated 06-07-2007. Hence, this C.R.P.

Ms. C. Jhansi Rani, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the necessity for the petitioner to file the I.A., had arisen, on account of the inability, expressed by the handwriting expert, and the Trial Court ought to have allowed the I.A.

Sri. S. Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that, when there are no undisputed signatures of the contemporaneous period, the comparison, by the expert, becomes difficult, and even if undertaken, would be imperfect.

To substantiate his plea, that the promissory note relied upon by the respondent is not genuine, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 606 of 2006, with a prayer to send the document for comparison by a government handwriting expert. The I.A. was allowed, and the disputed document, together with the undisputed specimen signatures of the petitioner, on the pleadings, vakalat etc., were forwarded to the handwriting expert. The expert, in turn, insisted that the signatures of the petitioner, contemporaneous to the disputed document, be forwarded. Petitioner expressed his inability, and the whole effort had become virtually futile.

Comparison of signatures, by an expert, is provided for under the Indian Evidence Act, and the procedural part of it, is taken care of, by under Order 26 of C.P.C., in so far as it relates to civil matters. It is no doubt true, that comparison is a complex process, and the exercise would become perfect, in case the comparison is of signatures of contemporaneous period. However, it is very difficult to expect the contemporaneous signatures, to exist. Whatever be the possibility of securing such signatures of persons, involved in business, it is difficult to expect from those, who do not undertake day-to-day business. A given expert may express his inability to undertake comparison, in the absence of the signatures of the corresponding time, of the disputed document. However, if one possesses capability, to express the opinion, by undertaking comparison of the disputed and undisputed signatures, though separated by time, such as, by interpreting the slant, curves etc., in the writing of a concerned person, an opinion can certainly be rendered. At any rate, the opinion expressed by a handwriting expert is not the final word, on the issue. The parties can put forward their own objections for the conclusions arrived at by the expert, and the Trial Court itself can examine it, to satisfy itself about the accuracy of the opinion. The burden squarely rests upon the person, relying upon such document, to prove the execution thereof, through the other oral an