IMPORTANT POINT
Expert opinions are not conclusive and must be supported by substantive evidence; courts have discretion in allowing further expert evaluations.

JUDGMENT :

A. Badharudeen, J.

This Original Petition, has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs :

(i) Call for the records relating to Exhibit P7 order from Sub Court, Ottapalam;

(ii) Set aside Exhibit P7 order;

(iii) Grant such other reliefs found just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Perused the impugned order and relevant materials available.

3. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and respondent herein is the defendant in O.S. No.279/2010 on the files of the Sub Court, Ottapalam. The suit has been filed to realize Rs.2,77,200/- with interest and cost, on the strength of cheque, alleged to be executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Since the defendant disputed the authenticity of the cheque, the same was forwarded to the State Forensic Science Laboratory. The Scientific Assistant (Documents), Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Thrissur, as per the report dated 20.10.2014 reported as under :

“It has not been possible to arrive at any definite conclusion regarding the authorship of the red enclosed questioned signature stamped and marked Q1 in comparison with the blue enclosed standard signatures similarly stamped and marked A1 to A6 and S1 to S30.”

4. Thereafter, the plaintiff/petitioner herein again filed a petition to forward the documents to Forensic Lab, Thiruvananthapuram, for expert opinion. As per the impugned order, the learned Sub Judge dismissed the petition. At this juncture, the petitioner herein filed this petition challenging the impugned order. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as per the decision in Hydru and another v. Govindankutty Nair reported in [AIR 1982 KERALA 49], in paragraph No.14, this Court held as under :

“14. The above discussion leads to the conclusion that whether it be under O.26 of the Code or under S.45 of the Evidence Act, there is no prohibition as such against making a second reference to a handwriting expert without setting aside the report of the first; the Court has a discretion in the matter. To say so is not to handover to the alcoholic the key of the distillery and to permit the trial Courts to issue commissions galore, but only to distinguish a matter of practice from a matter of law. The discretion is there, of course, to be used with circumspection.”

5. He also placed the decision in Chandrasekharan Nair v. Olympic Credit Corporation reported in [2014 (2) KLT 242] with reference to paragraph Nos.14 and 15. The same are extracted hereunder :

“14. Experts are persons who have special or peculiar skill which is acquired by study of scientific work and practical observations. An expert is one who has made the subject upon which he speaks a matter of particular study, practice or observation; and he must have special knowledge of the subject (State of H.P. v. Jai Lal & Ors. (2000 (2) KLT SN 15 (C.No.17) SC = (1999) 7 SCC 280). He is a person instructed by experience (Narayana Kekunnaya v. Vishnu Derinjathaya (1961 KLT 960). His opinion must be based on specialized knowledge. There are certain tests to ascertain the reliability of experts. His educational background, readiness to give the details of his techniques and procedures are two of such tests. The lower court had no materials before it to ascertain the qualifications and competence of V. Sukumara Chettiyar. (The report shows that V. Sukumara Chettiyar is a retired Joint Director and Head of Documents Division of the Kerala State Forensic Science Laboratory). It is also not known whether V. Sukumara Chettiyar had any equipment to scientifically examine documents. Before a document is sent to a person for scientific examination the court should at least prima facie satisfy itself about his academic qualifications and competence and that he has a sufficiently equipped laboratory. This was not done in this case. When an expert is app