The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's reliance on expert opinion, the fallibility of handwriting expert's opinion, and the cautious approach in comparing signatures and handwritings.

JUDGMENT :

A.K.RATH, J

This appeal is by the plaintiff. The suit was for realisation of an amount of Rs.13,600/-from the defendant.

2. The case of the plaintiff was that on 08.02.1984 Raghunath Sahu-defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.10,000/-from him for the marriage of his daughter. He promised to return the said amount by 22.02.1984. He executed a receipt vide Ext.1 in favour of the plaintiff as a collateral security. The defendant did not return the said amount in spite of the repeated requests.

3. The defendant entered contest and filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. According to him, he has already repaid the loan amount to the plaintiff on 30.08.85 in presence of Rabinarayana Behera and B. Jogulu. The plaintiff had granted a receipt to him acknowledging receipt of Rs.10,000/-. He is not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff.

4. On the inter se pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck four issues. Parties led evidence, both oral and documentary, to substantiate their cases. Learned trial court came to hold that the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.10,000/-from the plaintiff on 08.02.84 and executed the receipt vide Ext.1 in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant repaid the loan amount of Rs.10,000/-to the plaintiff on 30.08.85 in the presence of Rabinarayan Behera and B.Jogulu. The plaintiff had granted a receipt vide Ext.A to the defendant acknowledging the receipt of the loan amount. Held so, it dismissed the suit. The plaintiff filed Money Appeal No. 3/92 before the learned District Judge, Berhampur, Ganjam, which was subsequently transferred to the court of learned 1st Additional District Judge, Berhampur, Ganjam and re-numbered as Money Appeal No. 3/92 (Money Appeal No. 6/91 GDC). The appeal was eventually dismissed.

5. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:-

“Whether a Court can assume the role of a handwriting expert and give its opinion on the disputed signature appearing in a document vide Ext.A ?”

6. Heard Mr. Debasis Pattnaik, learned Advocate on behalf of Mr. M.R. Mohanty, learned Advocate for the appellant. None appears for the respondent.

7. Mr. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the defendant has admitted that he had taken a sum of Rs.10,000/-from the plaintiff. He has not repaid the same. The plaintiff filed an application before the learned trial court to send the signature appearing in Ext.A to a handwriting expert. The same was rejected by the learned trial court on the ground that the application was filed after closure of evidence of the plaintiff. The learned trial court compared the signature of the plaintiff appearing in Ext.A with the plaint and Vakalatnama. The learned trial court cannot assume the role of a handwriting expert and render a finding. Learned appellate court did not delve into the same and confirmed the findings of the learned trial court. He further submits that the delay in filing the application for sending the disputed signature to a handwriting expert is per se no ground to reject the same. To buttress his submission, he relies on the decisions of the apex Court and this Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Parmar vs State Of Rajasthan, AIR 2013 SC 633 and Gujju Saraswati @ G. Saraswati and another v. G. Ram Prasad and others, 2017 (I) CLR 755 respectively.

8. In State of Maharashtra v. Sukhadeo Singh, AIR 1992 SC 2100, the apex Court held:-

“30. xxx xxx xxx

What emerges from the case law referred to above is that handwriting expert is a competent witness whose opinion evidence is recognised as relevant under the provisions of the Evidence Act and has not been equated to the class of evidence of an accomplice. It would, therefore, not be fair to approach the opinion evidence with suspicion but the correct approach would be to weigh the reasons on which it is based. The quality of his opinion would depend on the soundness of the reasons on which it is founded. But the court cannot afford to ove