Comparison of signature not done in accordance with law.

The Order of the Court was as follows :

Plaintiff in S.C. No. 9 of 1997, on the file of District Munsif's Court, Polur, is the revision petitioner.

2. Suit filed by revision petitioner was one for recovery of money on the basis of a promissory note alleged to have been executed by the respondent herein.

3. It is alleged that as per Ex. A-1 dated 10-1-1994, respondent herein borrowed a sum of Rs. 3,200/- from plaintiff, agreeing to pay interest which is also stated in the promissory note. Demand was made under Ex. A-2, to settle the transaction, for which the defendant sent a reply denying the execution and the borrowing. The suit was, therefore, necessitated.

4. In the written statement filed by the defendant, respondent herein, he denied the execution and stated that as between himself and plaintiff, there had been earlier transactions in dealing with paddy, and plaintiff has forged his signature from the accounts and has fabricated the promissory note.

5. The trial Court examined P.W. 1 (plaintiff) and also one of the attestors to Ex. A. 1 as P.W. 2. Defendant examined himself as D.W. 1 and another witness (scribe of Ex. A1) as D.W. 2. P.Ws. 1 to 3 were marked on the side of plaintiff, and Exs. D-1 and D-2 were marked on the side of defendant.

6. The lower Court dismissed the suit, and the same is challenged in this Revision.

7. One of the main reasons for dismissing the suit is that the lower Court compared the signature in Ex. A-1 with the signature of the defendant in the written statement and vakalath, and found that there is difference. The lower Court took it as a big circumstance against the plaintiff and came to the conclusion that the document is forged. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the procedure adopted by the lower Court is not proper, and a decision should not have been arrived at by lower Court, mainly relying on the signatures. It was further argued that the comparison is only on the basis of written statement and the vakalat which came into existence after the reply notice and after the promissory note was filed in Court. No document anterior to the transaction has been filed before Court, to prove the admitted signature on the basis of which alone comparison could be made. Learned counsel further argued that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 would conclusively show that the transaction is true. It was further argued that the evidence of D.W. 2 should not have been relied on.

8. Learned counsel for respondent submitted that this Court may not re-appreciate the evidence as if it is a Court of first appeal, as the same will be beyond the jurisdiction of this Court under S. 115, Cr. P.C. He supported the reasoning of the lower Court, and wanted the Revision to be dismissed.

9. After hearing learned Counsel for both parties, I feel that the procedure adopted by the Court below is not proper. As rightly contended by learned Counsel for petitioner, the main reason for dismissing the suit is based on a comparison of the signature. It is settled law that the Court cannot act as an expert. In a recent decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in (O. Bharathan v. K. Sudhakaran). Their Lordships followed an earlier decision of the Supreme Court reported in State (Delhi Admn.) v. Pali Ram, and held as follows in paragraph 18. Relevant portion reads thus :-

".........Though it is the province of the expert to act as judge or jury after a scientific comparison of the disputed signatures with admitted signatures, the caution administered by this Court is to the course to be adopted in such situations could not have been ignored unmindful of the serious repercussions arising out of the decision to the ultimately rendered. To quote it has been held in Pali Ram : (SCC p. 168, para 30) : (p. 21, para 29 of AIR)

" The matter can be viewed from another angle, also. Although there is no legal bar to the Judge using his own eyes to compare the disputed writing with the admitted writing, even without the aid of