The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of complying with procedural requirements for handwriting expert reports and the necessity of examining the expert in court, along with the evidentiary value of handwriting expert opinions under the Negotiable Instruments Act and the Indian Evidence Act.

V. Gopala Gowda, J. : This regular first appeal is by the defendant questioning the correctness of the judgment dated 19.12.1997 and decree, he has prayed to set aside the same by allowing this appeal and dismiss the suit urging various legal contentions.

2. In this judgment, for the sake of convenience, the rank of the parties is referred to as has been assigned in the plaint presented before the Trial Court.

3. Necessary brief facts are: Plaintiff is the holder in due course of the Pronote dated 19.11.1986 alleged to have been executed by the defendant in favour of a person known as B. Ramanna Hegde. He had in turn endorsed the pro-note in favour of the plaintiff for consideration. Thereafter plaintiff demanded to recover the amount from Ramanna Hegde and also defendant herein. His demand was not acceded. Therefore, suit was instituted for decreeing the suit claim with interest as prayed.

4. The defendant entered appearance through his Counsel, filed written statement inter alia denying the plaint averments that Exs. P. 1 and P.2 the Pronote and consideration receipt are forged and concocted documents. Further it is stated that during the year 1986 in the early part of December he had lost a bag containing certain documents. With regard to the same he has lodged a police complaint and also taken out publication in the newspaper. It is his further case that one Vijaya Bhaskar Shetty working as the Manager of the State Bank of India at that time was dealing with the defendant and he in collusion with the father-in-law of Ramanna Hegde concocted the Pronote and consideration receipt. Therefore he has stated that he is not liable to pay the suit claim and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. On the basis of the pleadings, the Trial Court framed 5 issues for its determination. The case went for trial. On behalf of the plaintiff, including himself a witnesses were examined as P.Ws. 1 to 3. Marked the documents produced as Exs. P.1 to P.8.On behalf of the defendants, he himself was examined as D.W. 1 marked the documents produced as Exs. D. 1 to D. 11. The Trial Court on appreciation of the pleadings and evidence on record answered issues 1 to 4 in the affirmative, issues 5 and 6 in the negative and, accordingly, judgment and decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff decreeing the suit as sought for with full costs and interest.

6. The correctness of the same is questioned in this appeal urging various legal grounds. The ground of attack of the impugned judgment is that the findings recorded on the contentious issues is erroneous for non-consideration of the legal evidence on record as the learned Judge has misread the evidence on record and further it is contended that findings are erroneous in law for the reason that the Trial Court has recorded the findings on the contentious Issues 1 to 4 though there is no evidence on record to answer the same in the affirmative. While answering Issues 5 and 6 the Trial Court has not considered the legal evidence in favour of the defendant that Exs. P.1 and P.2 are forged documents is not properly appreciated and recorded a finding. Therefore the learned Counsel has submitted that the same was liable to be set aside.

7. Learned Counsel Mr. S.G. Bhagwan, appearing on behalf of the defendant placing strong reliance upon Order 41, Rule 2 of the CPC contends that with the leave of the Court the ground which is not urged in the memorandum of appeal can be urged. The Appellate Court in deciding the appeal shall not be confined to the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal while permitting such new ground the party who may be affected must have sufficient opportunity to contest a case on that ground. Placing reliance upon the aforesaid provision of the CPC and the order sheet objections filed by the defendant to the report of the Court Commissioner who is a handwriting expert. It is noted in the order sheet dated 13.8.1997 that objections will be considered along with the suit. The same