Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Sri Justice Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, J
Krishtam Susheela (died) – Appellant
Versus
Khadeerunnisa – Respondent
ORDER :
1. This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , challenging the order in I.A.No.598 of 2024 in O.S.No.02 of 2019 dated 24.01.2025 passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajampet, dismissing the petition filed under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act and Section 151 of C.P.C, 1908.
2. I.A.No.598 of 2024 is filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 whereunder the petitioners raised a plea of sending Ex.B-1 Registered Sale Deed dated 07.11.1984 along with thumb impression obtained from Sub- Registrar Office, Kadapa for opinion of handwriting expert for comparison of the same with the signatures of the deceased plaintiff No.1 with her signature available on vakalat and original plaint. The respondent opposed the petition on various grounds. The Court below upon hearing arguments of both sides, observed that, though thumb impression register is available during life time of deceased Plaintiff No.1, she has not evinced any interest to send thumb impression register to technical expert nor she sought for her thumb impressions before the Court to enable the Court to send thumb impression register to technical expe
The High Court's revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to ensuring subordinate courts act within their jurisdiction, and requests for expert opinion on signatures executed 19 years apa....
The court reaffirmed that expert evidence, particularly in handwriting cases, should be approached with caution and is not conclusive without corroboration.
The time gap between admitted and disputed documents need not be within three years for signature comparison, and the court should consider the defendant's plea in the written statement when deciding....
The court can direct a party to provide specimen signatures and handwriting for comparison if there is an admission by the party and no prejudice would be caused by such direction.
Expert opinions on signatures require reliable, contemporaneous documents for comparison; belated applications lack merit.
The allowance of pre-trial applications to send disputed documents for Expert opinion is improper and constitutes a material irregularity.
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
