Point of Law : Handwriting experts opinion u/sec. 45 & 73 of Evidence Act is a week evidence and court should be slow to base their findings solely on such opinion, but should apply their own mind and take a decision.

JUDGMENT :

This is an Original Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the defendants in O.S.Nos.224/2017 and 225/2017, challenging the order in I.A.No.5/2021 dated 06.01.2022. Plaintiffs in the above Suits are the respondents herein.

2. Heard both sides in detail. Written objection was filed by the 1st respondent.

3. Short facts: I.A.No.5/2021 is an application filed by the defendants under Section 151 and Order 16 Rule 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking the following reliefs:

“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to appoint a hand writing expert for the comparison of the disputed signatures of late Mr. P.C.Davis and the signature of Grace Davis in the alleged promissory note (Exbt A-1) and the alleged Acknowledgment letter (Exbt A-1(a)) with the admitted signatures of the said later Mr. P.C.Davis in the cheques which are marked as Exbt A-2 and A-8 and the signature of the 2nd defendant Smt. Grace Davis which may be taken by this Honourable Court and in the documents that may be produced as per the direction of the Court and direct the hand writing expert to submit a report before the Court comparing the said disputed signatures with the original admitted signatures of late Mr. P.C.Davis and the 2nd defendant in the above cases.”

4. The plaintiffs zealously opposed grant of the reliefs as sought for. The learned Munsiff addressed the rival contentions and finally dismissed the application holding that the documents sought to be sent for expert opinion, viz., A1 and A1(a), are acknowledgment letters supporting the contention raised by the plaintiffs based on 2 cheques alleged to have been executed by one P.C.Davis, the husband of the 2nd defendant. The Munsiff also found that the petition was filed when the case was posted for defendants' evidence, after completion of the plaintiffs' evidence. Therefore, the learned Munsiff found that there is no reason to allow the petition filed belatedly to get opinion evidence in relation to the documents which are supporting only the original transactions alleged to be taken place in between the plaintiffs and the defendants based on 2 cheques issued by P.C.Davis, who is no more.

5. Advocate Parvathy Menon. A, who appeared for the petitioners, argued at length to convince this Court that the defendants P.C.Davis and Grace Davis emphatically denied their signatures in Exts.P7 (Ext.A1 before the trial court) and Ext.P7(a) (Ext.A1(a) before the trial court). Thereafter, when the plaintiffs were examined, their evidence also is not clear in the matter of execution of Exts.A1 and A1(a). Therefore, expert opinion as regards to the signature in Exts.A1 and A1(a) are necessary to prove that those signatures were not written by P.C.Davis or Grace Davis. In this attempt, the learned counsel's attention was brought to the written statement filed by the defendants. Going through the averments therein, it is clear that though the transactions as alleged by the plaintiffs were denied in general, the signature of Grace Davis alone was disputed in so far as Exts.A1 and A1(a) are concerned. As regards to the signatures of P.C. Davis, there is no specific denial in the written statement. As such it could be seen that the signatures in Exts.A1 and A1(a) as that of P.C.Davis not denied in the written statement. Moreover, it is relevant to note that P.C.Davis is no more and it is difficult to get sufficient number of signatures of P.C.Davis for comparison with that of signatures of P.C.Davis in Exts.A1 and A1(a), in a case, where-in the written statement the defendants never denied the signatures of P.C.Davis in the above documents.

6. In the objection filed by the plaintiffs, it has been contended that during cross examination of PW1, the defendants disputed the signatures in Ext.A2 cheque too, and therefore, no document available to compare Exts.A1 and A1(a) with that of admitted signatures of P.C.Davis. In