A party seeking to send a document for expert comparison must provide authentic documents containing admitted signatures; failure to do so results in dismissal of the application.

ORDER :

SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J.

1. The defendant in the suit filed the above revision against the order dated 16.07.2024 passed in I.A. No.539 of 2024 in O.S. No.385 of 2019 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Srikakulam.

2. Respondent/plaintiff filed O.S. No.385 of 2019 against the petitioner/defendant for the recovery of the amount on the strength of the promissory note, dated 27.10.2016.

3. The defendant filed a written statement and is contesting the suit.

4. Pending the suit, the petitioner/defendant filed I.A. No.539 of 2024 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to send a promissory note, dated 27.10.2016 (Ex.A1) to the handwriting expert for comparison with the admitted signatures. The said application was opposed by the respondent/plaintiff by filing counter.

5. The trial Court, by order, dated 16.07.2024, dismissed the application.

6. Heard Sri K. Chennakesavulu, learned counsel representing Sri S. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the trial Court ought to have allowed the application and sent Ex.A1 to the handwriting expert for comparison of the signatures.

8. The point for consideration is:

Does the order of the trial Court suffer from any illegality warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India?

9. As stated supra, the suit is filed to recover the amount on the strength of the promissory note and the defendant pleaded forgery. Pending the suit, the defendant, by filing the interlocutory application prayed the Court to send Ex.A1-promissory note dated 27.10.2016 to a handwriting expert for comparison with his admitted signatures. Except for pleading to send Ex.A1 to the handwriting expert, no document containing the admitted signature was filed along with the I.A., to send the same to the handwriting expert. No purpose will be served by ordering such an application unless the person praying the court for sending the document for expert, files the document containing admitted signatures.

10. In Taidala Yesupadam and another vs. Burugu Sreenu 2023 (1) ALT 343 A.P., it was held that the party, who is making an application to send the document to an expert to compare the signature, should assert and file authentic documents containing his or her signatures along with I.A. and without making available the admitted signatures, ordering interlocutory application, will not serve.

11. In the case on hand, the defendant did not file any authentic documents which contained his admitted signatures. The signature scribed in the open court, vakalat, suit summons and written statement cannot be termed as an admitted signature as there is every likelihood of the defendant disguising the signature.

12. In Chennadi Jalapathi Reddy vs. Pratapa Reddy and another 2019 (14) SCC 220 the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:

"24. There is another reason why we are not inclined to place reliance on the opinion of the expert DW 2. From a perusal of his report, Ext. B-2, it is evident that barring the signature on a written statement in a prior suit, all other admitted signatures of the first defendant are of a period subsequent to the filing of the plaint (i.e. on the vakalatnama and the written statement filed in this suit itself). These admitted signatures taken subsequent to the filing of the suit could not have been used as a valid basis of comparison, and their use for this purpose casts serious doubt on the reliability of the entire report, Ext. B-2. Thus, the report was liable to be discarded on this ground alone, and was wrongly relied upon by the High Court."

13. In P. Padmanabhaiah vs. G. Srinivasa Rao 2017 (2) ALD 368, learned Single Judge of composite High Court held as under:

In the well considered view of this Court, the defendant's signatures on the Vakalat and the Written Statement cannot be considered as signatures of comparable and assured standard as according to the plaintiff even by the