The court can compare signatures under Section 73 of the Evidence Act and make findings based on such comparison.

Rajiv Sharma, J.

This Regular Second Appeal has been instituted against judgment and decree dated 21.2.2005 rendered by learned Additional District Judge, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh in Civil Appeal No. 57/2003.

2. “Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are that respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiff' for convenience sake) filed a suit against the appellant-defendant (hereinafter referred to as 'defendant' for convenience sake) for recovery of Rs. 61,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum on the basis of an agreement dated 14.12.1997, Ext. PW-1/A. According to the plaintiff, he dealt in the business of sale and purchase of buffalos and cows. Defendant was employed in District Una. He was known to the plaintiff. Defendant approached the plaintiff on 14.12.1997. He intended to purchase 3 buffalos and one Jersey cow, price of which was settled at Rs. 65,000/-. Defendant paid Rs. 4,000/- to him towards earnest money. Remaining amount was to be paid by the defendant within a period of eight months without any interest. It was further stipulated that in case defendant fails to make payment within the time frame, plaintiff shall be entitled to charge interest @ 12%. An agreement was executed in the presence of witnesses. It was signed by the defendant. Defendant failed to make payment of amount within stipulated period. A notice was issued to the defendant. Defendant filed reply to the same. Suit was contested by the defendant. According to the defendant, plaintiff was a stranger to him. There was no occasion for the plaintiff to sell buffalo's or cows to him. He denied the signatures on the document relied by the plaintiff. Replication was filed by the plaintiff. Trial Court framed issues on 24.1.2002. Learned Sub Judge first class dismissed the suit on 31.5.2003. Plaintiff preferred an appeal against judgment and decree dated 31.5.2003 before the Additional District Judge, Una. He allowed the same on 21.2.2005. Hence this Regular Second Appeal. Plaintiff also filed Cross-objections bearing No. 632/2005 in the Regular Second Appeal seeking interest @ 12% per annum from the date of execution of the agreement, Ext. PW-1/A.

3. The Regular Second Appeal was admitted though no specific ground was formulated for admitting the appeal. Now, the same would be deemed to be admitted on substantial questions of law No. 1 and 3 framed at page-7 of the paper-book. Parties were put to notice. Since both the substantial questions of law are inter-linked as such same are taken up together along with cross-objection No. 632/2005.

4. Mr. N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Advocate, has vehemently argued that the Courts below have not correctly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence. According to him, there was no offer on the part of seller or acceptance on the part of vendee and opinion of the Handwriting Expert was to be sought.

5. Mr. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Advocate, has supported the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record carefully.

7. Agreement Ext. PW-1/A is dated 14.12.1997. PW-1 Pritam Singh deposed that he was an agriculturist. He was also selling cattle. Defendant was working as an Inspector in the Cooperative Society at Una. Defendant has come to him on 14.12.1997 along with PW-3 Ram Lok. Vikram Singh also came to his house. He selected one cow and three buffalo's for a sum of Rs. 65,000/-. He paid earnest money of Rs. 4,000/-. Remaining amount of Rs. 61,000/- was to be paid within eight months. Agreement Ext. PW-1/A was scribed by Ramesh Chand. Same was signed by the defendant in the presence of the marginal witnesses. Defendant has not paid any amount as per agreement Ext. PW-1/A. He sent a legal notice through advocate which is Ext. PW-1/B. Receipt is Ext. PW-1/C. Reply of the defendant is Ext. PW-1/D. In his cross-examination, he denied that documents were purchased by the defendant. I