Back
SUBBA REDDY SATTI
Yenni Venkata Ramana – Appellant
Versus
Boyana Ramesh Kumar – Respondent
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 poi
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.
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 I....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the discretion to allow or reject belated applications under Sec. 45 of the Indian Evidence Act lies with the Court, and no hard and fast rule....
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 filin....
Expert opinion – Power to seek expert opinion under Section 45 of Evidence Act, 1872 is discretionary and depends on facts of each case – Courts can refuse expert opinion only when no doubt exists re....
The absence of contemporaneous admitted signatures renders a request for handwriting analysis of disputed signatures unjustified, emphasizing the burden of proof on the petitioner.
The discretion of the court to seek expert opinion on disputed signatures is upheld, regardless of time gaps between signatures on different documents.
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
