Back
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH - PRINCIPLAL BENCH AT ANDHRA PRADESH
Subba Reddy Satti, J
Taidala Yesupadam – Appellant
Versus
Burugu Srinu – Respondent
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1335 of 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri C. Venkaiah
For the Respondents: Sri K.J.V.N.Pundareekhakshudu
An application to send a document to a handwriting expert under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act must be accompanied by authentic, contemporaneous admitted signatures; signatures on court filings like vakalats are insufficient as they may be deliberately disguised.
Headnote:The petitioners challenged the dismissal of an application filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, which sought to send a promissory note (Ex.A1) to a handwriting expert for opinion. The petitioners contended that the document was forged and fabricated; however, they failed to specify or provide authentic documents containing admitted signatures for comparison in their affidavit. The court found that signatures on vakalats, suit summons, or written statements filed after the suit initiation cannot be termed as admitted signatures due to the likelihood of disguised signatures. The primary issues were whether an application to send a document to an expert is permissible without mentioning authentic documents containing admitted signatures, and whether the lower court's order warranted interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The court reasoned that "no purpose will be served by ordering such an application unless the person praying the court to send the document for expert asserts about availability of admitted signatures" and noted that signatures obtained after a suit is filed lack the necessary standard for reliable comparison. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history of a suit for recovery based on a promissory note where the defendant alleges forgery. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. submissions regarding the necessity of expert handwriting analysis versus the lack of admitted signatures. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. the requirement for an applicant to provide authentic admitted signatures for expert comparison. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. judicial precedent establishing that signatures on court documents created post-litigation are unreliable for expert comparison. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. dismissal of revision petition due to failure to produce admissible standard signatures. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
ORDER:
Defendants in the suit filed the above civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order, dated 08.03.2022 passed in I.A.No.167 of 2020 in O.S.No.305 of 2018 on the file of learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Eluru.
2. Respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.No.305 of 2018 for recovery of amount on the strength of promissory note.
3. Petitioners/defendants filed written statement and inter alia contended that the suit promissory note is a forged and fabricated one and that no consideration was passed under said document.
4. Pending the suit, I.A.No.167 of 2020 is filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send Ex.A1, promissory note, dated 11.08.2017 to handwriting expert for opinion, after comparison of disputed signature with admitted signatures.
5. In the affidavit, filed in support of the petition, it was contended inter alia that the suit promissory note is a forged one and no consideration was passed under it. Hence, application was filed to send the document to handwriting expert for opinion.
6. Respondent/plaintiff filed counter opposing the said application.
7. The trial Court by order, dated 08.03.2022, dismissed the application, against which the present revision is filed.
8. Heard both sides.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants submits that in the written statement, petitioners/defendants raised a plea regarding forgery of Ex.A1 and to prove the same, the present application is filed to send Ex.A1 to handwriting expert to compare the disputed signature with the admitted signature. He would further submit that the trial Court without considering the said fact, dismissed the application. Thus, he prays to set aside the order under revision.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff on the other hand would contend that DW1 during his cross-examination denied his signature on the vakalat and nothing was stated in the affidavit regarding the admitted signature of the petitioners/defendants. Thus, he prays to dismiss the revision.
11. Now the points that arise for consideration are:
1. Whether interlocutory application filed by defendants with a prayer to send the document to expert without mentioning the authentic documents containing the admitted signatures is permissible?
2. Whether, the order of court below warrants interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India?
12. The suit is filed for recovery of amount on the strength of Ex.A1, promissory note. The petitioners/defendants raised specific plea that the suit promissory note is forged and fabricated. To substantiate the said plea, petitioners/defendants filed the present application. However, except seeking sending of Ex.A1 to handwriting expert, no averment was made in the affidavit regarding the document containing admitted signature available, to send the same to the handwriting expert. No purpose will be served by ordering such an application unless the person praying the court to send the document for expert asserts about availability of admitted signatures.
13. After the court orders the petition, the litigants are coming up with a prayer to send the signature scribed in the open court or to compare with the signatures available on vakalat, suit summons and written statement to the expert. In fact the signature scri
