The Hon’ble Smt. Justice Renuka Yara Civil Revision Petition No.2329 of 2024

Order:

This is a Civil Revision Petition preferred by the petitioner/petitioner/defendant aggrieved by the order 05.07.2024 passed by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge at Kothagudem in favour of respondent/respondent/

plaintiff in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in O.S.No.44 of 2019.

2. Heard Sri Subba Rao Vadrevu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Sureddy Priyanka, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record.

3. The petitioner herein filed a petition under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to refer the promissory note dated 02.08.2016 to a handwriting expert for comparison with admitted signatures on vakalath and written statement.

4. The respondent herein filed a suit for recover of money on the basis of pronote dated 02.08.2016 which according to the petitioner herein is a forged document. The said document is not supported by consideration and the signature therein is a forged signature. The petitioner denied acquaintance with respondent, denied his signature on the promissory and therefore, sought the comparison of signature on promissory note with admitted signatures on vakalath and written statement. Said petition was opposed by the respondent herein alleging that the promissory note is supported by consideration. The evidence of the petitioner herein is closed in the main suit and at the fag end of trial, the petition is filed only to protract the proceedings. Upon considering the arguments of both the parties, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the promissory note is of the year 2016 whereas vakalath and written statement are of the year 2019. There are no contemporaneous signatures and therefore, the Court itself can compare the signatures, as such, dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by said order, the present revision is preferred.

5. In grounds of revision, it is pleaded that the Trial Court erred in holding that there are no contemporaneous signatures to compare the suit promissory note when the signatures are disputed and the very execution of the document is disputed. There is a need to send the document to hand writing expert for opinion and that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent in case the signatures are sent to hand writing expert for opinion. The petitioner alleged that the right of the Court to compare the disputed signature under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act is erroneous and therefore, prayed that the impugned order be set aside.

6. The learned counsel or the petitioner relied upon judgment of this Court between Bande Siva Shankara Srinivasa Prasad v. Ravi Surya Prakash Babu and others1 wherein, the following issues have been considered:

“27. It is essentially within the judicious discretion of the Court, depending on the individual facts and circumstances of the case before it, to seek or not to seek expert opinion as to the comparison of the disputed handwriting/signature with the admitted handwriting/ signature under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Court is however not barred from sending the disputed handwriting/signature for comparison to an expert merely because the time gap between the admitted handwriting/signature and the disputed handwriting/ signature is long. The Court must however endeavour to impress upon the petitioning party that comparison of disputed handwritings/signatures with admitted handwritings/signatures, separated by a time lag of 2 to 3 years, would be desirable so as to facilitate expert comparison in accordance with satisfactory standards. That being said, there can be no hard and fast rule about this

1 2015 SCC OnLine Hyd 467

aspect and it would ultimately be for the expert concerned to voice his conclusion as to whether the disputed handwriting/ signature and the admitted handwriting/signature are capable of comparison for a viable expert opinion. The view expressed by the Division Bench in JANACHAITANYA HOUSING LIMITED v. DIVYA FINANCIERS,