The validity of handwriting expert opinions in signature verification hinges on the availability of reliable, contemporaneous signatures from the defendants for comparison.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Goli G.V.S. Sai, learned Counsel for the petitioner.

2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in OS No.64 of 2020 on the file of the Court of the II Additional District Judge at Visakhapatnam. He filed the suit against the defendants/respondents for specific performance of contract to execute a regular sale deed in his favour and to put in physical possession of the plaint schedule property and for other reliefs.

3. In OS No.64 of 2020, the defendants filed written statement, inter alia, denying the execution of the sale agreement dated 07.05.2018 and raising the plea of forgery with respect to that agreement.

4. The defendants also filed IA No.314 of 2022 under Section 45 of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT , to send the sale agreement for opinion of the expert.

5. The plaintiff filed objection and contested the application.

6. The learned II Additional District Judge, however, by the order dated 22.10.2024, allowed the I.A., after recording that the suit agreement of sale dated 07.05.2018 could be send to the handwriting expert for comparison with the admitted signatures of the 1st defendant in the document being produced by the defendants with further directions as under vide Para 7 of the order dated 22.10.2024.

"7. In the result, the petition is allowed. The petitioners/defendants particularly the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 is directed to produce her contemporary signatures in the documents, like Registered Documents, Bank Challans, Bank Application Forms, Cheque Books, etc., pertaining to the year 2018, before this Court, and also to pay the Expert Fee of Rs.6,000/- by way of Demand Draft. Upon such production of contemporaneous Documents and payment of Court Fee, the petitioner No.1/defendant No.1 is directed to appear before the Court, and to give her specimen signatures in the open Court in the presence of both Counsel. Thereafter, the Office is directed to send the disputed Agreement of Sale, the Documents containing the contemporary signatures of the petitioner No.1/defendant No.1, and her specimen signatures obtained in the open Court, to the Handwriting Expert i.e., A.P. State Forensic Science Laboratory, Mangalagiri, Guntur District, on payment of Process by the petitioners/defendants. Call on 26.11.2024."

7. Challenging the order dated 22.10.2024, the civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed.

8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the defendants did not mention about the documents which contained their admitted contemporary signatures and consequently, learned Court is not justified in passing the order for comparison of signatures. He placed reliance in P. Padmanabhaiah v. G. Srinivasa Rao , 2017 (1) ALT 710 and in M. Pedda Vannur Swamy v. Chinna Vannur Swamy , CRP No.3138 of 2023 decided on 12.01.2024. No other argument was advanced.

9. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

10. In the affidavit, in support of the application under Section 45 of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT , the defendants inter alia mentioned specifically, 'I am ready to furnish my authorize signatures in contemporary documents as ordered by the Court for the purpose of comparison and to give opinion by the expert i.e., handwriting expert'.

11. The submission advanced is that those contemporary documents which allegedly contained the admitted signatures must have been filed alongwith the application or their description should have been made.

12. In the view of this Court, it is not so necessar