The absence of contemporaneous admitted signatures renders a request for handwriting analysis of disputed signatures unjustified, emphasizing the burden of proof on the petitioner.

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 note with his signatures obtained before the Court.

b. The petition was opposed by filing counter of the respondent/ plaintiff stating that the petitioner is working as a teacher and managed the Truth Labs by sending a photostat copy of the suit promissory note with changed signatures of the defendant and obtained a report in his favour to escape his liability under the suit. The respondent gave prior notice to the petitioner on 31.10.2019 when the cheque issued by him was bounced. The petitioner received the legal notice and gave reply notice on 20.11.2019 by denying the debt and requested to furnish photostat copies of the cheque and the promissory note. The respondent furnished the cheque and the promissory note on 27.11.2019. The suit promissory note was executed by the petitioner with his own handwriting. The petitioner has to send the admitted signatures from any bank or government office to secure the opinion of a handwriting expert and the signatures obtained in Court do not serve any purpose for comparison as the promissory note pertains to the year 2018.

c. After hearing both parties, the petition was dismissed by the trial Court observing that the petitioner had not filed any admitted contemporary signatures.

4. Aggrieved by the order, this revision petition is filed.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petition was filed at the earliest opportunity and the petitioner has prima facie shown his genuine defence of denying the signature by filing report of the Truth Labs, an opportunity shall be provided to the petitioner to establish his defence. He further submitted that if at all the petitioner had not filed admitted signatures; the trial Court could have directed him to produce such signatures instead of dismissing the petition solely on that ground.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the trial Court rightly dismissed the petition. He further submitted that since the promissory note was in the handwriting of the defendant, no purpose would be served by examining only the disputed signatures and if his signature is obtained by Court after a long time, it could not serve the purpose of comparison due to delay and also due to possibility of signing under disguise to deny the signature. He further submitted that the petitioner himself ought to have filed contemporaneous signatures instead of blaming the Court for not directing him to produce such signatures.

7. As can be seen from the impugned order, it is recorded that the contention of the plaintiff was that the suit promissory note was written in the own handwriting of the defendant. As rightly contended, in such a case, securing the opinion as to the handwriting in the signature alone does not serve any purpose. The petitioner, instead of pla