ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners against the Order and decree, dated 26.12.2019 passed in I.A.No.170 of 2019 in O.S.No.212 of 2016 on the file of the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

2. The present I.A No.170 of 2019 has been filed by the petitioner/defendant under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act to send Ex.A1 suit promissory note to the hand writing expert for comparison of admitted signatures to be taken before the Court and on consideration of documentary evidence and on submissions made by both the counsels, the trial Court allowed the petition.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned perused the material available on record.

4. On hearing, this Court observed that the trial Court was right in dismissing the petition on the ground that the Vakalat, written statement and affidavits filed by the defendant in the suit cannot be referred along with Ex.A-1 suit pronote for comparison of her signatures thereon with the signature on Ex.A-1 for the reason that the signatures on such documents were made by the defendant after filing of the suit and the defendant did not file any other documents containing her signatures at the relevant time of suit pronote or documents containing her signatures prior to the dispute had arisen between parties.

5. The above reason is impeccable for the reason that since the defendant took a plea in her written statement that the suit pronote is a rank forgery, the possibility of her signing differently on the written statement, vakalath, and other documents filed before the trial Court subsequent to the filing of suit cannot be ruled out. Therefore, the trial Court rightly held that such documents which were originated after filing the suit cannot be said to contain admitted signatures of the defendant for referring to expert for comparison with the disputed signature on Ex.A-1 pronote.

6. In similar circumstances, this Court in P.Padmanabhaiah v. G.Srinivasa Rao1, wherein, this Court held as follows:

“7. The defendant who is seeking comparison, by an expert, of his signatures on vakalat and written statement on one hand with the disputed signatures, which are on Exhibits A1 and A2 on the other, has not produced into the Court below, along with his petition, any authentic documents like registered sale deeds or any other registered documents containing his signatures of a contemporaneous or any other period. The defendant has not even produced any other [unregistered] documents containing his signatures which are prior in point of time to Exhibits A1 and A2.

It is not his case that there are no such documents. It is settled law that the science of identifying thumb impressions is an exact science and does not admit any mistake or doubt. Nevertheless, the opinion of an expert in regard to genuineness or otherwise of signatures and/or hand writings is purely opinion evidence and such opinion evidence in regard to signatures and/or handwriting will not be considered as an opinion based on exact science as in the case of thumb impressions. In addition, it is necessary to observe that expert’s opinion evidence as to handwriting or Signatures can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence. In the well considered view of this Court, the defendant’s signatures on the Vakalat and the Written Statement cannot be considered as signatures of comparable and assured standard as according to the plaintiff even by the date of the filing of the vakalat the defendant is clear in his mind about his stand in regard to the denial of his signatures on the suit promissory note and the endorsement thereon and as the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant might have designedly disguised his signatures on the Vakalat and the

1 CRP No.2121 of 2016, dated 7.12.2016 Written Statement cannot be ruled out prima facie. The view point being projected by the plaintiff that if the defendant is called upon to furnish his signatures in open Court, he might d