The opinion of a handwriting expert is not conclusive but only a piece of evidence to be considered along with other evidence.

JUDGMENT

Battu Devanand, J. - This revision petition is directed against the order, dated 19.11.2019 in I.A.No.827 of 2019 in O.S.No.42 of 2018, on the file of the Court of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, dismissing the application filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure to send the suit pronote/Ex.A.1 to the handwriting expert for comparing with the admitted signatures to be obtained in the open court.

2. The facts of the case are that the defendant is the revision petitioner. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of amount on the basis of promissory note, dated 20.06.2013. The defendant filed written statement denying the averments of the plaint and pleaded that the suit promissory note is a rank forged one and created for wrongful gain. The defendant filed I.A.No.827 of 2019 under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act to send the disputed promissory note/Ex.A.1 to handwriting expert for comparison, examination of signatures of the petitioner and for his opinion. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff stating that they had already adduced evidence to prove the suit pronote by examining the attestor and the scribe and therefore the application filed at the belated stage cannot be entertained. The Court below by order, dated 19.11.2019 after hearing both the parties dismissed I.A.No.827 of 2019, which is under challenge in this revision petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record.

4. In the present case it is not in dispute that the plaintiff has already examined attestor and scribe of the Ex.A.1/pronote. After closure of plaintiff evidence, defendant got examined himself as D.W.1 and when the suit is posted for further evidence of defendant side, the present petition is filed. Though the defendant raised an objection in the written statement that the suit pronote was a fabricated document, but he allowed the evidence to born and move the present application at the fag-end of the proceedings.

5. At this stage, it is to be noted that it is well settled law that the opinion of an expert with regard to the signature or handwriting in the disputed document is not conclusive, but it is only a piece of evidence which requires to be taken into consideration along with other evidence produced by the parties and ultimately it is for the Court to arrive at the own conclusion on appreciation of the entire evidence available on record.

6. It appears that the Court below relied upon a decision of this Court in Kaveti Sarada Vs. Vemineni Hymavathi, (2006) 4 ALD 460 in which it was held as under:

13. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and particularly keeping in view that the necessary evidence was already adduced by both the parties in support of their claims, the Court below in exercise of its discretion concluded that it is not necessary to send Ex.A.1 pronote for expert's opinion. Such discretion exercised by the Court below on appreciation of the evidence already adduced cannot be held to be perverse or vitiated on account of any extraneous considerations.

14. As noted above, the application for sending the disputed signatures to an expert for comparison with the admitted signatures cannot be ordered as a matter of course, but it has to be considered keeping in view the facts and circumstances of a particular case. Since such discretion was exercised by the Court below in a judicious manner, the impugned order in declining to send Ex.A.1 pronote for opinion of handwriting expert cannot be said to be vitiated by any patent error of fact or law. The facts in the two decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in O. Bharathan and R.R. Raju cases (supra) are entirely different and therefore the ratio laid down therein cannot be extended to the case on hand.

7. In Pamu Padmavathi Vs. Perati Yakub Reddy, (2008) 3 ALD 669 the same principle has been reiterated holding that;

"Expert opinion compa