The court emphasized that while it has discretion to compare signatures under Section 73, seeking expert opinion is permissible at any stage, provided it is not used to delay proceedings.

ORDER:

The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the Order dated 08.11.2023 dismissing petition in I.A.No.88 of 2023 in O.S.No.173 of 2017 on the file of X Additional District Judge, Tirupati, Tirupati District filed by the plaintiff under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send the Ex.A1 to A6 suit promissory notes along with other admitted signatures of the petitioner/defendant to the hand writing expert to determine whether the signatures in Ex.A1 to A6 are that of the defendant or not.

2. The respondent/plaintiff filed suit for recovery of amount of Rs.27,46,865/- basing on six promissory notes viz., Ex.A1 to A6 which are said to be executed in the year 2015 on different dates.

3. The suit was opposed by filing the written statements of the defendant alleging that the signatures on the suit promissory notes are not that of the defendant. Therefore, the defendant filed the application in I.A.No.88 of 2023, to prove his defense. The petition was opposed by the plaintiff by filing counter denying the contents of the petition. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition observing that the suit was coming up for arguments and the petition had been filed at that stage and if really the petitioner intended to seek the opinion at initial stage of the suit, he would have filed the petition by then, but he had kept quiet all these years and filed the petition at the fag end of the suit. It was further observed that the Court has power under Section 73 of the Evidence Act, 1872, to compare the signatures of the petitioner/defendant along with other admitted signatures.

4. Aggrieved by the order, this revision petition is filed stating that the Court has power under Section 73 to compare the signatures, but it is not a ground to dismiss the petition under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and that the Court, instead of taking that job of comparison on itself, could have permitted the petitioner to get the opinion of the expert as a matter of caution, though it is not precluded from taking its own decision.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no bar in filing the petition at the stage of the arguments as the petitioner has to prove the defense taken in the written statement. He further stated that in addition to the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 73, opinion of the expert would render assistance to Court to arrive at a just conclusion.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following judgments:

In Ch.Venkata Sathyavathi vs E.Rambabu (C.R.P.Nos.1790 & 1792 of 2023, dated 23.09.2024) it was held at para 14 as follows:

“14. In Siddavarapu Abishek Paul vs. Budala Denia, [2023 SCC OnLine AP 1555], it was held at para No.13 as follows:

“13. Whenever a party disputes the signature on a particular document, two remedies are open to him, either to request the Court to compare the signatures or to file an application to send the document to the expert for comparison. When the petitioner opted to file an application to send the document to the handwriting expert, no prejudice will be caused to either party. When he is asserting that the signature is that of the said party, even though there is a gap between the disputed signatures and admitted signatures, a science has been developed to compare such signatures also by taking into consideration the direction of the strokes, the speed of writing, the pattern of writing etc., therefore, it cannot be said that no useful purpose will be served by sending the document to the expert. After comparison, if the similarities of the disputed signature and the admitted signatures are very negligible, then the Court can formulate its opinion with the assistance of the expert's report and by comparing the signatures whether the report has to be accepted or not. But, if the opportunity is denied to the defendant and if the matter is carried to the appellate Court, there