Sending original documents in the custody of the court to a handwriting expert is a highly objectionable practice and should not be permitted. The proper procedure is to allow the handwriting expert to inspect the document in the court premises itself and, if necessary, to permit the expert to have photographs of the same for the purpose of examination.

1. The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 22. 1997 passed in

I.A. No. 190 of 1997 in O.S. No. 254 of 1994 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur, dismissing an application filed by the petitioner for sending the suit document for the opinion of the Handwriting Expert.

2. The facts leading to filing of this petition are as follows:-The petitioner is the defendant in the suit. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S. No. 254 of 1994 before the lower court for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,66,800 on a promissory note dated 17. 1991 executed by the petitioner. Though the defendant, the petitioner admitted that the signature in the promissory note was put by him, his case was that it was put on a blank promissory note given by him in the year 1986 and as such, he has never executed any promissory note dated 17. 1991. In order to establish his case that the signature in the suit promissory note was put in the year 1986 and other writings in the promissory note were not made in 1986, the petitioner/defendant filed an application in I.A. No. 190 of 1997 for sending the suit promissory note for the opinion of the Handwriting Expert. This application was contested by the respondent. Ultimately, by an order dated 22. 1997 the lower court dismissed the application mainly on the reason that the belated attempt by the petitioner is only to drag on the proceedings further, though the suit was filed in 1994 and the written statement had been filed by the defendant as early as 6. 1995. It is further observed by the Court below that the ex parte decree was passed on 16. 1996 and again on 21. 1997 the ex parte decree was set aside on the application being filed by the petitioner/defendant. Thereafter, the case had been adjourned to 2. 1997 for the trial and at that stage, the instant petition had been filed. This order is challenged in the revision before this Court.

3. I have heard Mr. Subbiah, the counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. Sivaji, the counsel appearing for the respondent.

4. I may mention, at the out set, that the prayer in the application filed by the petitioner in I.A. No. 190 of 1997 before the court below is not sustainable, in view of the judgments rendered by this Court earlier in T.A. Narasimhan, v. Narayana Chettiar and another, 1968 (2) M.L.J. 48 and Ramaswamy Konar v. Karuppa Konar, 84 L.W. 348 C.R.P. No. 1306 of 1970 dated 211. 1970. The point decided in these cases is as follows:

The practice of sending original document in the custody of the Court to the handwriting expert is highly objectionable and a very had practice and under no circumstances should a court permit or allow the document to go out of its custody, as such an evil practice is attendant with various risks. The proper procedure is to allow the handwriting expert to inspect the document in the court premises itself and if necessary to permit the expert to have photographs of the same for the purpose of examination. Moreover, following these decisions, the Registrar of this Court sent a circular to the lower Courts as well as the Director of Forensic Science Department intimating that under no circumstances the court should send the documents for examination by the expert from out of its custody. The relevant portions of the circular are given below: -

I am directed to state that in G.O.Ms. No. 194 Home (F.S) Department, dated 21. 1986, the Government have stated that in order to verify the documents referred by the Civil Courts, the Government in G.O.Ms. No. 2053, Home, 23. 1985, sanctioned certain additional staff to the Documents division of the Forensic Science Department. Therefore when it is evident that additional members of staff have been sanctioned exclusively for the documents division of the Forensic Science Department to verify the documents referred by the Civil Courts, it should not be difficult for the said department to send their experts to the Courts conce