Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao
Nallavula Vijaya Lakshmi – Appellant
Versus
Bommineni Venkata Ramana – Respondent
ORDER :
Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, J.
The petitioners herein are the defendants and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.57 of 2018 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, which is filed for recovery of money basing upon the promissory note.
2. After demise of the sole defendant/1st respondent, the legal heirs of the deceased defendant filed an application in I.A.No.387 of 2024 in O.S.No.57 of 2018 to send promissory note for expert opinion for comparison with the admitted signatures. The trial Court has dismissed the said application on the ground that the defendants have not filed any contemporary documents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of this Court in Bipili Kesava Rao vs. Raghunath Patnaik , [ 2023 Supreme (Online)(AP) 21984 ] for the proposition that the document can be sent at the belated stage. But the facts in the said judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the present case as the issue before the trial Court is that the defendants have not filed any contemporary documents to compare the signatures of the suit document i.e., Ex.A1 promissory note
For signature comparison in legal disputes, contemporaneous documents must be provided, ideally with a gap of two to three years; failure to do so warrants application dismissal.
Judicial discretion governs the decision to seek expert opinion for handwriting comparison under the Indian Evidence Act, without strict adherence to contemporaneity of documents.
The court determined that signatures for comparison must be within one to three years of disputed signatures, ruling that the lack of contemporaneous signatures constitutes an abuse of process.
The discretion of the court to seek expert opinion on disputed signatures is upheld, regardless of time gaps between signatures on different documents.
The time gap between signatures does not prevent expert comparison, and the determination of document validity is at the court's discretion.
The validity of handwriting expert opinions in signature verification hinges on the availability of reliable, contemporaneous signatures from the defendants for comparison.
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....
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
