When there is a serious dispute over signatures, a party is entitled to seek a handwriting expert opinion, and the request should be accorded if made in time before the commencement of the trial. The expert's opinion, while of weak value, should be considered along with all other relevant facts and materials.

1. The three CRPs. in CRP.Nos.1023 to 1025 arise out of the common order passed by the trial court rejecting the application filed by the defendant in comparing the signature found in the promissory note whose genuineness was disputed by the defendant for assessment by handwriting expert. The claims under the three suits were to sums above Rs.3 lakhs in each suit.

2. In all the suits, the signatures found in the promissory notes were denied by the defendant and having regard to the relatively large sums of money which were sought to be claimed under the disputed documents, the defendant had thought of securing a handwriting experts opinion by sending the documents for comparison with the admitted signatures of the defendant and for obtaining the report of the handwriting expert. The trial Court rejected the petition on the ground that the defendant had not set out any details of the so called admitted document and in the absence of such information, it was not possible to countenance the plea raised by the petitioner.

3. The petitioner contended that having regard to the fact that the amount claimed under the promissory notes were substantially large sums, the petitioner was entitled to seek for a experts opinion that there had been really no delay in filing the application. The written statement had been filed on 4. 2007 in all the suits and application for taking an experts opinion was filed reasonably early before commencement of the trial on 9. 2007. It was his contention that the question as to what document shall be compared with the signatures found in the promissory notes would be a matter that could be addressed at the time when the expert had the custody of the documents for making his assessment and merely because the admitted documents had not been tendered before the Court at the time of filing of the petition, the petitioner could not have been rejected.

4. The procedure adopted by the trial court and the reasoning given by him for rejection of the petition are not tenable. The motive of the petitioner itself cannot be seriously viewed in view of the fact that the amount claimed under the promissory note were substantial and if any party wanted to adduce proof of the fact that the signature found in the document was not that of his, it was always open to him to secure an experts opinion. The value of the experts opinion is a matter of appreciation by the Court itself and by the mere fact that it could be commented upon as weak piece of evidence, there was still no justification by denying of the above relief by obtaining such opinion. There have been several decisions of this Court and particularly a decision rendered by this Court in CHINNAPPAN AND ANOTHER VS. CHINNAMMAL reported in 2005 (3) LW 259 considered several decisions bringing out the aspect that the Court shall not itself take the role of an expert and in a case where there is serious dispute with reference to signature found in the document it would be open to a party to apply for an experts opinion by comparing the signature found in the disputed document and the signature in the admitted document.

5. There have been several different approaches in the manner of securing the experts opinion. The Courts have always relied on safeguarding the document in its custody and therefore different modes had been expressed in different judgments. One mode is that the expert shall come to a Court and take photographs of the signature found in the disputed document and the signature found in the admitted documents and magnify them, if necessary, and take them for drawing up an opinion. Yet another mode is to assign the task of securing the custody of the document by an Advocate Commissioner entrusted with the duty of transporting the document to another place where the handwriting cum Forensic expert has his office and then bring it back after securing the report on a due consideration of the relevant materials. Yet another mode of securing an exper