The court emphasized the necessity of expert opinion for signature verification in disputes, cautioning against non-expert comparisons.

ORDER:

The petitioner herein, who is the plaintiff filed suit O.S.No.43 of 2023 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Parvatipuram, for recovery of money basing upon a promissory note.

2. The respondent herein, who is the defendant in the above suit, filed I.A.No.270 of 2023 under Section 45 of the Evidence Act requesting to send the document i.e., promissory note, to the Handwriting Expert for comparison of the signatures on the suit promissory note with the admitted signatures, on the ground that she never borrowed any amount and she never has executed any promissory note in favour of the petitioner herein-plaintiff and the respondent herein-defendant has also taken the said plea in the written statement and the said document is forged one and the suit promissory note is to be sent to the Handwriting Expert for comparison of the signatures.

3. The said I.A.No.270 of 2023 was allowed, vide order dated 08.12.2023, ordering to send Ex.A1-suir promissory note to the expert opinion for comparison of the signatures with the admitted signatures of the respondent herein-defendant obtained in the open Court and the contemporary signatures of the respondent herein-defendant and to file a detailed report to that effect, observing that unless and until, the suit document is sent to the Expert opinion, it is difficult to firm conclusion whether the suit document is forged or not and useful to disposing the judgment matter on merit effectively.

4. The said order was assailed by the plaintiff in the present Civil Revision Petition on the ground that the respondent herein-defendant is habituated in signing in the official records in one manner and to avoid payment of suit promissory note debt, she might have signed in another manner mischievously contrary to the signature in official records, but she was physically present and received consideration from the petitioner herein-plaintiff, but however, the Court below has erred in allowing the said I.A. filed to send the document for Expert’s opinion and it is the burden on the petitioner herein-plaintiff to prove the suit promissory note and the Court below has erroneously allowed the said I.A. Hence, prayed to set aside the order dated 08.12.2023 in I.A.No.270 of 2023 in O.S.No.43 of 2023.

5. In Thiruvengadam Pillai v. Navaneethammal, [(2008) 4 SCC 530], the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that it is risky to arrive at a conclusion regarding signatures and handwriting without an expert opinion. The relevant paragraph is extracted below:

"While there is no doubt that Court can compare the disputed handwriting/signature/finger impression with the admitted handwriting/signature/finger impression, such comparison by Court without the assistance of any expert, has always been considered to be hazardous and risky. When it is said that there is no bar to a Court to compare the disputed finger impression with the admitted finger impression, it goes without saying that it can record an opinion or finding on such comparison, only after an analysis of the characteristics of the admitted finger impression and after verifying whether the same characteristics are found in the disputed finger impression. The comparison of the two thumb impressions cannot be casual or by a mere glance. Further, a finding in the judgment that there appeared to be no marked differences between the admitted thumb impression and disputed thumb impression, without anything more, cannot be accepted as a valid finding that the disputed signature is of the person who has put the admitted thumb impression. Where the Court finds that the disputed finger impression and admitted thumb impression are clear and where the Court is in a position to identify the characteristics of fingerprints, the Court may record a finding on comparison,