Judicial discretion governs the decision to seek expert opinion for handwriting comparison under the Indian Evidence Act, without strict adherence to contemporaneity of documents.

ORDER :

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

Heard Sri Rama Chandra Rao Gurram, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.61 of 2024 on the file of VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. The suit for recovery of money was filed by the plaintiff/respondent based on the promissory notes dated 21.09.2021 (Ex.A1) and 06.09.2023 (Ex.A2).

3. In the said suit, the petitioner filed I.A.No.544 of 2025 for sending the petitioner’s disputed signatures on those promissory notes for comparison with admitted signatures.

4. The said application has been rejected by the impugned order dated 04.07.2025 on the ground that the documents annexed to the application, for comparison were not contemporaneous documents. It further observed that for sending the documents for comparison, the documents containing the admitted signatures should be of authentic and reliable nature.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that those documents submitted for comparison were the contemporaneous document as they were executed within 2-3 years of the pronotes containing the disputed signatures.

6. This Court finds that those documents photocopy of loan application dated 27.10.2021 and the original agricultural loan receipt dated 30.03.2023 were executed after the promissory note dated 21.09.2021 (Ex.A1) but before the promissory note dated 06.09.2023 (Ex.A2). However, if those documents did not inspire confidence for their authenticity and standard signatures, this court finds no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Trial Court in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

7. In Bande Siva Shankara Srinivasa Prasad v. Ravi Surya Prakash , [2016(2) ALD 1 (FB)] upon which learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance the following issues were for references:

“(a) Are contemporaneous handwritings/signatures always or normally necessary for comparison and report;

(b) What is the meaning of “contemporaneous”, and what is the measure of contemporaneity;

(c) Why are Examiner of Questioned Documents frequently returning documents sent to them for opinion, to the referring Court for contemporaneous signatures/handwritings? Is current handwriting science/expert protocols in the area incapable of comparing handwritings/signatures without “contemporaneous” models for comparison; whether in all circumstances or only in specific situations; and if in specific situations, what are the range of circumstances where contemporaneous handwritings/signatures required for rendering an opinion?”

8. The Full Bench of this Court answered the reference as follows:-

“15. We accordingly answer the reference as under:

It is essentially within the judicious discretion of the Court, depending on the individual facts and circumstances of the case before it, to seek or not to seek expert opinion as to the comparison of the disputed handwriting/signature with the admitted handwriting/ signature under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Court is however not barred from sending the disputed handwriting/ signature for comparison to an expert merely because the time gap between the admitted handwriting/signature and the disputed handwriting/signature is long. The Court must however endeavour to impress upon the petitioning party that comparison of disputed handwritings/signatures with admitted handwritings/signatures, separated by a time lag of 2 to 3 years, would be desirable so as to facilitate expert comparison in accordance with satisfactory standards. That being said, there can be no hard and fast rule about this aspect and it would ultimately be for the expert