COMMON ORDER:

Both the revision petitions are filed against the orders dated

25.03.2022 passed by the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, in I.A. No. 103 of 2022 and I.A.No.104 of 2022 in O.S. No. 102 of 2019 respectively.

2. Since the issue involved in both the revision petitions is same and parties to the revision petition are also same, they are heard and disposed of by way of this common order.

3. In brief, the facts of the case are that the respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.102 of 2019 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, against the petitioner for recovery of money under a promissory note. During pendency of the suit, the petitioner filed I.A.Nos.103 of 2022 and 104 of 2022 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 151 of CPC praying the Court below to send Exhibit A.1- promissory note to the Andhra Pradesh State Forensic and Scientific Laboratory, Mangalagiri, for comparison of his admitted signatures on vakalat and written statement and the signatures to be obtained in open Court and also for comparison of his Left Thumb Impression.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant submits that the signatures of the petitioner on the suit promissory note are forged and fabricated and the petitioner never borrowed any amount from the respondent. As such, he is entitled to prove his defence by seeking expert opinion. After completion of evidence of the plaintiff, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove his case of forgery and fabrication. Therefore, filing of the present I.As. is in defence of the petitioner/defendant but not to cause any delay or to drag on the matter. He submits that the law is well settled that the judgment cannot be based on comparison, in particular, the comparison of thumb impression is not possible. Hence, the finding of the court below that comparison of the signatures and thumb impression on suit pronote with vakalatnama and written statement are one and the same, is erroneous. The learned counsel further submits that the observation of the Court below that having considered the entire evidence that is placed before the Court, the Court below came to a conclusion that there is no need of referring signatures and left thumb impression of the petitioner for comparison for expert opinion, is nothing but pre-judging the issue and pre- determined to decree the suit. By that, the court below committed jurisdictional error in passing the impugned orders and failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it. Therefore, the orders of the Court below dated 25.03.2022 are illegal, erroneous and unsustainable in law, in view of the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court and other High Courts.

a) In Karuppa Gounder Vs. Kuppusamy1, the High Court of Madras held as under:

“6. I am of the considered opinion that obtaining handwriting expert's opinion in the facts and circumstances of this case would certainly help the Court to arrive at a consistent and firm conclusion. A plain reading of the order of the lower Court would convey the idea that the lower Court dismissed the I.A. on the sole ground that there was delay in applying to the Court by the defendant for getting the assistance of the handwriting expert. In such a case, the mere delay should not be taken as material, for the reason that as per the defendant's version, he awaited the plaintiff to take steps to obtain handwriting expert's opinion, but in this case, he did not do so. Hence, when the matter was posted for defence, he chose to invoke the power of the Court under Order 26 Rule 10 (a) of CPC and to get assistance of handwriting expert to find out whether the purported signature of the defendant is that of his admitted signature. Even though Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act might contemplate that the Court itself could compare the disputed signature with that of the admitted signature, nonetheless, the Court should be slow in resorting to such a procedure, to the effect jud