The opinion of a handwriting expert is not binding on the court, and inconsistencies in signature usage can undermine claims of forgery.

ORDER

1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 06.01.2021 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge (for brevity, 'the learned trial Court') in Case no.23/2015 whereby, an application filed by the petitioner/defendant (for brevity, 'the defendant') under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for brevity, 'the Act of 1872') has been dismissed.

2. The relevant facts in brief are that in a suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff (for brevity, 'the plaintiff') under Section 37 CPC for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,61,860/-, on an application filed by the defendant, he was granted leave to defend. During the course of his evidence, the defendant moved an application under Section 45 of the Act of 1872 praying therein that the disputed promissory note be subjected to examination by the handwriting expert as it bears his forged signature in Hindi whereas, he always puts his signature in English. The application has been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 06.01.2021, impugned herein.

3. Assailing the order, learned counsel for the defendant submits that in view of dispute raised by him with regard to the forgery of his signature on the promissory note, it was incumbent upon the learned trial Court to have subjected the same to examination by the handwriting expert. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the order dated 06.01.2021 be quashed and set aside and the application filed by him under Section 45 of the Act of 1872 be allowed.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the learned trial Court has rejected the application filed by the defendant vide order impugned in its judicious discretion which does not warrant any interference of this Court under its supervisory jurisdiction. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

Heard. Considered.

5. While dismissing the application filed by the defendant, the learned trial Court has observed that he has disputed his signature on the subject promissory note on the premise that it bears his signature in Hindi while, he always puts his signature in English as was evident from the written statement and the vakalatnama filed in the case whereas, on the summons of the suit sent to him, he has put his signature in Hindi and therefore, the whole basis of disputing his signature stands washed away. The learned counsel for the defendant did not dispute that the summons bear his signature in Hindi. Even otherwise also, it is a well settled legal principle that opinion of a handwriting expert is an opinion only not binding upon the Court. After examining the order dated 06.01.2021, this Court is not satisfied that it suffers from any such patent jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference of this Court under its supervisory jurisdiction vide Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

6. In view thereof, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.