Expert opinion is not substantive evidence and can be disregarded if contrary to substantive evidence; courts can compare signatures directly.

Headnote:
Expert Evidence - Promissory Note Dispute - Evidence Act 73 - The court ruled that expert opinion is not substantive evidence and can be disregarded if it contradicts substantive evidence, emphasizing the court's authority to compare signatures directly.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a defendant in a money suit based on a promissory note, sought to send signatures for expert examination after denying the execution of the note and claiming forgery. The trial court dismissed this request, citing delay and lack of proper explanation.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner's request for expert examination was belated and aimed at delaying the trial. It upheld the trial court's decision, referencing a prior case that established expert opinion as non-substantive evidence.
Issues: Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the petition for expert examination of signatures in light of the delay and the nature of expert evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that expert opinion is not substantive evidence and can be disregarded if it contradicts substantive evidence. The court also has the authority to compare signatures directly under Section 73 of the Evidence Act.
Final Decision: The original petition is dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking to set aside Ext.P4 order dated 19.03.2024 passed by the Munsiff’s Court, Punalur in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in O.S.No.291 of 2016.

2. Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.291 of 2016 and the petitioner in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in O.S.No.291 of 2016 on the file of the Munsiff’s Court, Punalur. The suit is for money based on a promissory note. The petitioner has filed Ext.P2 written statement stating that he has not received any amount from the respondent and he has not signed any promissory note in favour of the respondent and that the signature in the promissory note is forged. The written statement was filed as early as on 29.08.2017. The present petition, I.A.No.1 of 2021 was filed seeking to send the signature for examination by an expert. The said application was dismissed as per Ext.P4. It is aggrieved by the same that the present original petition was filed. Petitioner contends that the examination by an expert is absolutely necessary for a proper adjudication of the issues involved in the suit and delay occurred in the same is for valid reasons.

3. The trial court dismissed Ext.P3 petition filed as I.A.No.1 of 2021 as per Ext.P4 taking into consideration that the suit is one filed in the year 2016 and the written statement was filed on 29.08.2017 wherein the petitioner/defendant denied the execution of the promissory note and took a contention that the signature is forged. Even then the petitioner did not care to take any step for expert opinion and the petition was filed only in 2021. The trial court relied on the judgment of this Court in Deepak S. v. State of Kerala, 2024 KHC 109 to reject the request of the petitioner as per Ext.P4.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. A perusal of Ext.P4 order would reveal that the suit was filed as early as in 2016 and the petitioner has taken a stand in the written statement as early as on 29.08.2017 denying the execution of the promissory note and the present petition was filed when the suit is listed for trial. There is no proper explanation for not filing the petition within a reasonable time. This Court in Deepak S’s case cited supra has held in paragraph 14 as follows:

“14. In the instant case, the learned Magistrate rightly compared the signatures in Exts.P1, P2, P9, P10 and P11 and found that the same are similar and there is no necessity to get expert opinion by resorting to the procedure for the same. It is important to note that expert opinion is not substantive evidence and the same is only opinion evidence of corroborative nature and the same has no independent existence without the support of substantive evidence. The Courts have the power to ignore opinion evidence, if the same is against the substantive evidence. Further, the Courts also have the power to compare the disputed signatures and the admitted signatures in view of Section 73 of the Evidence Act as held by the Apex Court in Ajitsinh Chehuji Rathod’s case (supra). On appraisal of contentions raised by the accused herein, there is no reason to interfere with the order of the trial court, in any manner, since no valid grounds made to interfere with the order impugned. It is discernible from the facts of the case that the intention of the accused is to drag the trial of a case, which reached upto the stage of 313 examination, that too in view of the direction given by this Court in O.P.(Crl) No.675/2022, at the instance of the complainant who was aged 65 years during 2022 and now, no more.”

The court relying on Section 73 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (corresponding Section 72 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) held that the expert opinion is not a substantive evidence and the same is only opinion evidence of corroborative nature and the same has no independent existence without the support of substantive evidence and that the court has power to compare the disputed signatures and the admitted signatures in view of of the Evidence Act (corr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document