1. By order dated 13.08.2010, a learned Judge directed that C.R.P.Nos.1500 and 1572 of 2010 be placed before a Bench of two or more Judges for consideration. On 29.09.2010, the Division Bench that dealt with the matter opined that it should be considered by a Full Bench. That is how C.R.P.Nos.1500 and 1572 of 2010 along with connected C.R.P. Nos.4098 and 5008 of 2010 came to be placed before this Full Bench.

2. The operative portion of the reference order dated 13.08.2010 of the learned Judge reads as under:-

The conspectus of the precedent law as above would show that some of the learned Judges of this Court have taken a view that if there is long time gap between the admitted signature and disputed signature, no purpose would be served by referring the disputed handwriting/signature to handwriting expert. Some other learned Judges have taken a view that in view of scientific advances, the handwriting expert can compare the admitted and disputed signatures even if there is a long time gap between them. The inconsistency between the two line of cases would certainly create a dilemma for the Courts below. Of late, there is increasing number of suits for recovery of money based on promissory notes in which invariably defendants take a plea that suit promissory note is forged or fabricated. There is also increasing number of instances where the parties to the proceedings seek indulgence of the Court to send disputed documents to handwriting expert at a belated stage. Therefore, in my considered opinion, it would be appropriate if the matter is adjudicated by larger Bench to decide the question whether a civil Court is barred from sending disputed handwriting/signature to handwriting expert if the time gap between the admitted signature and disputed signature is very long.

The office is therefore directed to place both the civil revision petitions before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constituting a Bench of two or more learned Judges for deciding the question.

3. In effect, the question referred for decision by the learned Judge was whether the Court would be barred from sending the disputed handwriting/signature to an expert if the time gap between the admitted signature and the disputed signature was very long. However, the reference order passed thereafter by the Division Bench, which led to the matter being placed before us, went a step further. Significantly, the very same learned Judge who had passed the order dated 13.08.2010 presided over the said Division Bench. It was brought to the notice of the Division Bench that another Division Bench of this Court had held in Janachaitanya Housing Limited v. Divya Financiers, 2008 (4) ALD 339 (DB) : 2008 (3) ALT 409 (DB), that there can be no set time limit for filing an application for sending handwriting/signatures for comparison and expert opinion. This decision was interpreted by the Division Bench to mean that even if there were no contemporaneous signatures, an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for brevity, the Act of 1872) could be moved. Referring to an earlier decision rendered by a learned Judge dating back to the year 1960 in Annapurnamma v. B. Sankararao, AIR 1960 AP 359, which held to the effect that a belated application would be of no avail if there was a lapse of time between the admitted signature and the disputed signature, the Division Bench opined that these two views needed to be reconciled, though they had no direct relation but had a bearing on the question referred to the Division Bench. This was the basis for the reference to a Full Bench.

4. As the crucial question referred for consideration to this Full Bench was whether contemporaneity of signatures was an essential pre-requisite for the Court to direct comparison thereof for expert opinion, the Full Bench constituted earlier, comprising Hon'ble Sri Justice G. Raghuram and two of us (RR, J and SK, J), passed a detailed order on 21.09.2012 soliciting expert opinion throug