Back
IN THE IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
B.S.Bhanumathi
Narahari Anji Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Ganta Rama Rao – Respondent
ORDER :
B S Bhanumathi, J.
This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed against the order, dated 31.08.2023, dismissing I.A.No.907 of 2022 in O.S.No.354 of 2020 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole, filed by the petitioner/defendant under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to send the suit promissory note, dated 01.02.2018, to the handwriting expert for examination of the signatures belonging to the petitioner along with the admitted signatures and signatures obtained before this Court for opinion.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. The facts, briefly stated, are as follows:
a. The suit is filed for recovery of money of Rs.6,21,333/- based on a promissory note, dated 01.02.2018, for Rs.4,00,000/-. The suit was opposed by the defendant by filing written statement denying borrowal of the amount and pleading his own defence. At the time of settling issues, the petition in I.A.No.907 of 2022 was filed on the ground that he had filed his written statement along with opinion, dated 22.01.2021, given by Truth Labs and that he needs opinion of a handwriting expert by examining his signatures on the suit promissory
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.
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that when a government expert has already stated that it is not possible to ascertain the age of the ink, and the party seeking expert opinion can ....
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....
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 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....
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
