When a party disputes the authenticity of a signature, it is the duty of the court to appoint a handwriting expert to examine the disputed signature. The court should not solely rely on its own comparison of signatures.

1. The petitioner has filed the present revisional application assailing the order no. 41 dated 16th April, 2015 passed by the Learned Judge, 10th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Money Suit No.609 of 2009 thereby rejecting the petitioner’s application under Order 26 Rule 10A (1) read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code for appointment of handwriting expert.

2. The brief case of the petitioner is as follows :

That the opposite party in the year 2009 filed a suit against the petitioner before the Learned 3rd Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta under provision of Order 37 of the Civil Procedure Code registered as Money Suit No.609 of 2009 for reliefs interaila for a decree of principle amount of Rs.1,99,000/- as per statement of account.

3. It was alleged in the suit that the plaintiff/opposite party has given a loan for sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the petitioner with the understanding to repay the said amount within 15 months at a monthly installment of Rs.13,333.33 paise.

4. It was further alleged that the petitioner made a sum of Rs.1000/- only on 29th August, 2006 after repeated demand by the plaintiff/opposite party. Against the said Money Suit the petitioner submitted their written statement denying all the allegations.

5. It was also mentioned in the written statement to save limitation the plaintiff/opposite party made up a cock and bull story just before the expiry of original period of limitation i.e. on 30th September, 2006. Both the parties adduced evidence in the said suit. Sometime in November, 2011 the petitioner took out an application under Order 26 Rule 10 A (1) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for appointment of a handwriting expert. The relief sought for in the said application is quoted below :

“Under the aforesaid facts your petitioner most humbly prays before your Honour for an order appointing a Handwriting Expert to peruse the sample handwriting and signature of the petitioner that with the handwriting and signature appearing in the alleged admission of debt allegedly made by the petitioner on 29th August 2006 of payment of sum of Rs.1000/- and undertaking to pay a sum of Rs.1,99,000/- in the Annexure produced by the Plaintiff with the Plaint and file a Report before this Ld. Court on such terms so as to this Ld. Court may deem fit and proper and pass such further or other order/(s) and/or direction/(s) as may deem fit.”

6. The plaintiff/opposite party used their written objection against that application under Order 26 Rule 10A (1). The petitioner earlier approached before this Hon’ble Court by filing a civil revision application being C.O No.4086 of 2011. That application was disposed of by this Hon’ble Court on 19th December, 2011 holding interalia as follows :

“In my view, the order impugned does not merit interference at this stage, for the application of the petitioner has not been rejected by the learned trial judge. However, it is clarified that if on hearing arguments of the parties the learned trial judge is of the view that the application for appointment of n expert does not merit an order being passed in terms of the prayer made therein, he shall immediately pass an order to that effect so as to enable the petitioner to question its correctness before the appropriate forum. In such case, final decision on the suit shall not be rendered before expiry of ten days from date such order is passed. On the contrary, if the learned trial judge is f the view that the suit itself ought to be dismissed without appointing an expert on the basis of his own assessment of the disputed signature, he shall be free to decide the suit in accordance with law and in the process hall also dispose of the application without passing any order thereon.”

7. Thereafter vide impugned order no.41 dated 16th April, 2015 the said application under Order 26 Rule 10A (1) was rejected by the Learned 10th Bench City Civil Court, Calcutta with the following observations :

“Section 73 of the E