The report of a handwriting expert is only a corroborative piece of evidence and cannot be the sole basis for the court's decision.

Darshan Singh, J.

The present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner-defendant against the order dated 02.05.2016 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Charkhi Dadri, whereby the application moved by the petitioner for getting examined the questioned documents from the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh/Hydrabad/Shimla, has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there are two contradictory reports of the hand writing experts produced before the learned trial Court. He contended that there is a material controversy in the suit that as to whether the father of the petitioner had executed the pronote and receipt in question and borrowed a sum of Rs. 21 lacs from the plaintiff-respondent. He contended that in order to do the complete justice, the learned trial Court should have sent the questioned documents i.e. pronote and receipt to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh/Hydrabad/Shimla for examination.

3. He further contended that the petitioner is a retired senior Army officer and is a dead-honest person. The fraud has been committed by the plaintiff-respondent at his back. The opposition by the respondent to the application itself indicates that he has fabricated the documents with intention to grab the money of the petitioner. At the time of the alleged execution of the pronote, the age of the father of the petitioner was about 82 years. The witnesses examined by the respondent are interested witnesses. He contended that it is not believable that now a days a person will make the cash payment of such a huge amount of Rs. 21 lacs and that too to an unknown old person who was not ordinarily residing at Charkhi Dadri. The plea raised by the respondent that father of the petitioner has purchased some land also stands falsified. Thus, he contended that the suit filed by the defendant is based on forged and fabricated pronote and receipt. These documents should be referred to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory in the interest of justice and to bring the truth on record.

4. I have duly considered the aforesaid contentions.

5. Plaintiff-respondent has filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 22,26,000/- (Rs. 21 lacs principal amount + Rs. 1,26,000/- as interest) on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 05.09.2012 allegedly executed by Roop Ram Lore, the father of the petitioner-defendant. It is an admitted fact that the respondent-plaintiff has examined the hand writing and finger print expert namely Shamsher Singh Malik, who has given the report in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and tallied the standard signatures of Roop Ram Lore with the signatures on pronote and receipt. The present petition has also examined in his evidence Sh. Vijay Kumar Rastogi, hand writing and finger print expert, who has given the report that signatures on pronote and receipt dated 05.09.2012 are not of the father of the petitioner and is the product of free hand forgery. So, there are two reports of hand-writing experts available before the learned trial Court. It is the function of the Court to appreciate both the reports in the light of the other evidence available on record, the reasons given in the report by the hand writing expert in order to arrive at conclusion and the reliability of the report and then to determine as to which report is to be relied upon and which one is to be discarded or both the reports are liable to ignored/discarded.

6. It is not understandable that when the petitioner has already examined his handwriting expert, then why he has moved this application for getting the disputed documents examined from the third expert of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory. The apprehension of the petitioner that generally it is stated that the private handwriting expert engaged by the party give the report in its favour is just an imagination of the petitioner. The report of the handwriting expert is only a corroborative piece of evid