Back
SUBBA REDDY SATTI
Taidala Yesupadam, S/o. Issak – Appellant
Versus
Burugu Srinu, S/o. Prakasam – Respondent
What is the requirement for sending a disputed document to a handwriting expert for comparison of signatures? What is the role of admitted signatures in expert opinion evidence regarding handwriting? How does Article 227 of the Constitution of India apply to the High Court's superintendence over lower courts in matters of interlocutory applications?
Key Points: - The Civil Revision Petition was filed against an order dismissing an interlocutory application to send a promissory note to a handwriting expert for comparison of signatures (!) . - The defendants contended that the suit promissory note was forged and fabricated, and no consideration was passed [2000551230002]. - An interlocutory application was filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send the promissory note to a handwriting expert for comparison of the disputed signature with admitted signatures [2000551230003]. - The affidavit supporting the application did not mention any authentic documents containing admitted signatures for comparison [2000551230011]. - The High Court held that ordering an interlocutory application to send a document to an expert for signature comparison will not serve any purpose without making available admitted signatures [2000551230011]. - Signatures on vakalat, suit summons, and written statements filed after the suit cannot be termed as admitted signatures for comparison as there is a likelihood of the defendant disguising their signature [2000551230012]. - Authentic documents containing admitted signatures of a contemporaneous period are necessary for reliable expert opinion [2000551230014]. - The defendant in this case denied their signature on the vakalat during cross-examination [2000551230018]. - Since the petitioners/defendants failed to produce admitted signatures for comparison, the trial court's order dismissing the petition was upheld [2000551230019]. - The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed [2000551230020].
ORDER :
Defendants in the suit filed the above civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order, dated 08.03.2022 passed in I.A.No.167 of 2020 in O.S.No.305 of 2018 on the file of learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Eluru.
2. Respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.No.305 of 2018 for recovery of amount on the strength of promissory note.
3. Petitioners/defendants filed written statement and inter alia contended that the suit promissory note is a forged and fabricated one and that no consideration was passed under said document.
4. Pending the suit, I.A.No.167 of 2020 is filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send Ex.A1, promissory note, dated 11.08.2017 to handwriting expert for opinion, after comparison of disputed signature with admitted signatures.
5. In the affidavit, filed in support of the petition, it was contended inter alia that the suit promissory note is a forged one and no consideration was passed under it. Hence, application was filed to send the document to handwriting expert for opinion.
6. Respondent/plaintiff filed counter opposing the said application.
7. The trial Court by order, dated 08.03.2022, dismissed the application
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
