The court emphasized the importance of expert evidence in determining the authenticity of signatures and highlighted that the court itself is not competent to act as an expert in handwriting analysis.

HARI NATH TILHARI, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition out of the order dated 30th May, 1996, whereby the Court below has rejected the petitioner's application I. A. III made in Original suit No. 519 of 1992. By l. A. III the revision petitioner has prayed for appointment of hand Writing Expert to compare the disputed signatures with the admitted signatures, of the defendants and to give his opinion with reference to Exts. P1 and P2 as according to him it was necessary to do so. The Court below rejected that application taking a view that the court itself is competent to compare the signatures and there is no need to appoint a Hand writing Expert. It further observed that the defendant has not denied his signature on the pronote and receipt and there is no question of the same being sent to the Hand Writing expert. Therefore, the Court below rejected that application. Feeling aggrieved by that order the petitioner has come up in this revision.

( 2 ) THE learned Counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the order impugned does not amount to case decided. He further contended that the Court could itself compare the singatures. Mr. Gangadharappa, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the court below has erroneously observed that the defendant has not denied his signatures and as such there was no stage for moving the application for expert's evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that really it defendant has not denied the signatures and the learned Counsel for the respondent states that the defendant admits the signatures on the pronote then no doubt there may not be any need for appointment of Hand Writing expert. At this stage, learned Counsel submitted that the defendant does not and did not admit the signature on the pronote or receipt. If this being the position, in my opinion, rejecting of the application for appointment of hand Writing Expert to examine and determine the disputed signatures with admitted signatures will be tantamount to shutting down the evidence of the parties and disallowing the party to produce the material evidence which he has got the right to procedure. As such the order impugned amounts to a case decided for the purposes of Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code

( 3 ) EXPERT evidence is expert evidence. Hand Writing Expert is one who is experienced in science of examining, comparing by scientific methods of signatures and the handwriting. The Court while deciding the case is not competent to act as expert by itself. No doubt, the question as to whether the disputed document was executed by the party by putting his signatures has to be decided by Court after considering all the evidence including the expert evidence on the point led by the parties. But this cannot be a valid ground for refusing a" party to lead the expert evidence which party decide to lead and produce. The Court below, in my opinion; was mistaken in taking a view that the defendant has not denied his signatures in the pleadings and the defendant has denied the plaintiff's case and the execution of pronote and receipt and that is to amount to be denial of signing on pronote and receipt. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, the court below acted illegally in rejecting the application I. A. III in O. S. No. 519 of 1992. The burden was on the plaintiff to prove the case and the burden to prove execution, of the pronote aiong with signatures was on the defendant and to prove that he could lead oral evidence of the witnesses as well as expert evidence. If there was any delay in making the application that could be compensated by awarding costs.

( 4 ) THE revision petition is allowed. The trial Court is directed to appoint Hand Writing expert and send the disputed documents to the expert to compare the signatures with the admitted signatures of the defendant or after taking signatures in the presence of plaintiff. While allowing the application, it is necessary in the interest of justice to sadd

Click Here to Read the rest of this document