The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of expert opinions on identity of handwriting and the comparison of signatures, as provided under Section 45 and Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act.

ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner against the Order, dated 31.03.2023 passed in I.A.No.39 of 2021 in A.S No.43 of 2019 on the file of the Special Judge, POCSO Court, Ongole FAC-II Additional District Judge, Ongole (for short “the Court below”).

2. Heard Sri S.S. Rama Krishna Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Anup Koushik Karavadi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. The present impugned I.A.No.39 of 2021 in A.S No.43 of 2019 was filed by the petitioner under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act seeking to send Ex.A1 to the handwriting expert to compare the signatures on the Ex.A1 with the admitted signatures of the petitioner to prove the contest of the petitioner.

4. Originally the respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit basing on a forged and fabricated promissory note against him. It was fabricated before filing of the suit as if the borrowed amount of Rs.2,00,000/-from the respondent on 27.2.2015 for his family necessities. He did not execute the alleged promissory note on 27.2.2015 in favour of the respondent. The respondent forged his signatures and fabricated the suit promissory note. So it is just and necessary to send Ex.A1 to the handwriting expert to compare the signatures on Ex.A1 with his admitted signatures to prove his contest. Hence, the petitioner filed present I.A before the Court below. But the Court below has dismissed the said I.A. on the ground that no contemporary signatures of the petitioner signed in Telugu are filed and further mere sending the documents to the expert and receiving his opinion is not a conclusion proof and it is weak piece of evidence. Challenging the same, the present civil revision petition has been filed.

5. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents made in the affidavit, submits that, the Court below went wrong in observing that PW.1 to PW.4 are examined and after perusing the material available on record only the lower Court decreed the suit in favour of the respondent/plaintiff, that the executing of suit promissory note was proved by the plaintiff and there is a direct evidence. Further it is observed that he used to sign only in English, since from the beginning and as such the question of taking his signatures in the Open Court serves no purpose. Further it was also observed that no contemporary signatures of the petitioner signed in Telugu are filed and mere sending the documents to the expert and receiving his opinion is not a conclusion proof and it is weak piece of evidence is against the established principles of law. The said finding is very highly untenable. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to set aside the impugned order and pass appropriate orders.

6. To support his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad reported in Mudi Reddy Tirupathi Reddy Vs. T. Linga Reddy and another, 2015 (6) ALT 512 (S.B.), wherein it was held that :

……the application was filed after the matter was posted for arguments. Since the Division Bench of this Court in JANACHAITANYA’s case (1 supra) had held that no hard and fast rule controlling the discretion of the Court to send a disputed document or writing for opinion of the expert. I am of the view that the Court below cannot reject it on mere ground that it was filed at that stage. When the entire case rests upon the question whether the disputed document was executed by the respondents or not, in my considered opinion, the Court below is not right, in not referring the said document to an expert.

12. Coming to the question whether the evidence on record is sufficient to come to the said conclusion or not, in my considered opinion, at the stage of deciding whether or not to refer a document to an expert, it is not proper for the Court to express an opinion as to whether the other evidence on record, is sufficient or not. If such opinion is expres