The court has the authority to compare signatures without expert opinion under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act.

JUDGMENT :

Shampa Sarkar, J.

In Re. CO 2770 of 2022

1. The revisional application being CO 2770 of 2022, is directed against an order dated July 26, 2022, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Additional Court, Krishnagar, Nadia, in Title Suit No.384 of 2017.

2. By the order impugned, the learned court rejected an application filed by the defendant under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), seeking identification of the signature/hand-writing of the defendant on the AD card by comparison with other admitted signatures of the defendant, by a handwriting expert. The application was filed on July 12, 2022.

3. The learned court rejected the said application on the ground that there was no need to refer the signature of the defendant to an expert for identification, as the court being an expert of all experts, could compare the admitted undisputed signatures of the defendant available in the record with the signature on the AD card.

4. The court held that a bare perusal of the handwriting of Dilip Upadhyay and comparison of the same with the admitted signatures appearing in the written statement, affidavit-in-chief, etc., would indicate that there was no discrepancy. The learned court relied on Section 73 of the said Act, in this regard. The petitioner is the defendant in the suit.

5. The application was filed by the petitioner with the contention that during cross-examination of the petitioner as DW1, a notice was shown to the petitioner, issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, along with an acknowledgment due card. A question was put to the petitioner as to whether the said signature belonged to the petitioner or not. The petitioner denied his signature. Under such circumstances, when there was a denial of the signature, the court had no other alternative, but to send the admitted signature of the DW1 along with the AD card, to a handwriting expert, for a report.

6. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the matter of Triruvengada Pillai vs. Navaneethammal & Anr.,decided in Civil No.290 of 2001 had held that although there was no legal bar for a judge to use his own eyes to compare the disputed writing with the admitted writing even without the aid of any handwriting expert, but when the sheet anchor of the prosecution case was based on the handwriting of the accused, a judge should hesitate to adjudicate the matter only based on comparison and findings made by him. It was not advisable for a judge to take upon himself the task of comparing the admitted writing with the disputed one, to find out whether the two agreed with each other. The prudent course would be to obtain an opinion or an assistance of an expert.

7. Learned Advocate further submitted that when there was a specific denial in the cross-examination with regard to the signature appearing in the AD card, the learned court had no other alternative, but to allow the application and send the AD card to a handwriting expert for comparison.

8. Mr. Galib, learned Advocate appearing for the opposite party/plaintiff submitted that the only intention of the defendant/petitioner was to delay the proceeding. At the stage of cross-examination, when the defendant/petitioner was confronted with the AD card, he denied his signature. The petitioner did not pay rent since January 2014. The petitioner assured that the dues would be paid within August 2014. No such payment was made.

9. A legal notice was sent to the petitioner on August 19, 2017 and on receipt of the notice, the petitioner approached the opposite party and assured that he would clear all dues and a new agreement would be prepared. In spite of receipt of the said notice, the petitioner did not take any steps either to clear-up the dues or to enter into a fresh tenancy agreement. He also failed to vacate the suit property. Thereafter, another notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was served