The court has the discretion to seek expert opinion on the comparison of disputed and admitted signatures under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and there is no fixed time limit for filing such applications.

JUDGMENT

1. Defendant, in the suit filed the above revision against the order dtd. 21/10/2022 in I.A.No.1072 of 2019 in O.S.No.104 of 2018 on the file of learned II Additional District Judge, Guntur.

2. Plaintiff filed suit O.S.No.104 of 2018 against the defendant for recovery of amount basing on four promissory notes, dtd. 30/1/2015, 30/1/2015, 10/11/2015 and 10/11/2015 respectively.

3. Defendant, by filing written statement denied his signature on the promissory notes. Defendant also stated that he never saw face of the plaintiff.

4. Pending the suit, defendant filed I.A.No.1072 of 2019 under Sec. 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to send Exs.A1 to A3 to the handwriting expert for comparison with the admitted signatures.

5. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, while reiterating contentions in the written statement, defendant prayed to send Exs.A1 to A3 for comparison of signature with admitted signatures of the petitioner.

6. Plaintiff filed counter and opposed application.

7. Trial Court, by order, dtd. 21/10/2022 dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the same, present revision is filed.

8. Heard learned counsel on either side.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that defendant denied execution of promissory notes. He submits that in fact, defendant has no acquaintance with the plaintiff. In view of the specific plea raised in the written statement, defendant filed I.A. to send Exs.A1 to A3 to handwriting expert. Court below without appreciating the same dismissed the I.A.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, while supporting order of the trial Court would submit that there is no illegality in the order of the trial Court. Learned counsel, further contended that no authentic document, containing the admitted signatures, was filed.

11. The point for consideration is whether the trial Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested with it?

12. A perusal of the order shows that trial Court opined that petition was filed at a belated stage only to dragon on the proceedings.

13. The Full Bench of composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Bande Siva Shankara Srinivasa Prasad Vs. Ravi Surya Prakash Babu and Ors,2016 (2) ALD 1 while affirming the ratio of division bench in Janachaitanya Housing Ltd. Vs. Divya Financiers (AIR 2008 AP 163) observed as follows:

"It is essentially within the judicious discretion of the Court, depending on the individual facts and circumstances of the case before it, to seek or not to seek expert opinion as to the comparison of the disputed handwriting/signature with the admitted handwriting/ signature under Sec. 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Court is however not barred from sending the disputed handwriting/ signature for comparison to an expert merely because the time gap between the admitted handwriting/signature and the disputed handwriting/ signature is long. The Court must however endeavour to impress upon the petitioning party that comparison of disputed handwritings/signatures with admitted handwritings/signatures, separated by a time lag of 2 to 3 years, would be desirable so as to facilitate expert comparison in accordance with satisfactory standards. That being said, there can be no hard and fast rule about this aspect and it would ultimately be for the expert concerned to voice his conclusion as to whether the disputed handwriting/ signature and the admitted handwriting/signature are capable of comparison for a viable expert opinion. The view expressed by the Division Bench in JANACHAITANYA HOUSING LIMITED v. DIVYA FINANCIERS AP/0137/2008AP/0137/ 2008 : 2008 (3) ALT 409 (DB), as to the stage of the proceedings when an application can be moved by a party under Sec. 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, continues to hold the field and there is no necessity for this Full Bench to address that issue."

14. In Janachaitanya Housing Ltd. case, on reference the Division Bench of composite High of Andhra Pradesh held as follows:

"9. For the reasons af