APHC010505222024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 3062/2024 Between: Smt Bantu Radha ...PETITIONER AND Smt Akkena Rohini ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K SUBRAHMANYAM Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The petitioner herein, who is the plaintiff filed suit O.S.No.43 of 2023 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Parvatipuram, for recovery of money basing upon a promissory note. 2. The respondent herein, who is the defendant in the above suit, filed I.A.No.270 of 2023 under Section 45 of the Evidence Act requesting to send the document i.e., promissory note, to the Handwriting Expert for comparison of the signatures on the suit promissory note with the admitted signatures, on the ground that she never borrowed any amount and she never has executed any promissory note in favour of the petitioner herein-plaintiff and the respondent herein-defendant has also taken the said plea in the written statement and the said document is forged one and the suit promissory note is to be sent to the Handwriting Expert for comparison of the signatures. 3. The said I.A.No.270 of 2023 was allowed, vide order dated 08.12.2023, ordering to send Ex.A1-suir promissory note to the expert opinion for comparison of the signatures with the admitted signatures of the respondent herein-defendant obtained in the open Court and the contemporary signatures of the respondent herein-defendant and to file a detailed report to that effect, observing that unless and until, the suit document is sent to the Expert opinion, it is difficult to firm conclusion whether the suit document is forged or not and useful to disposing the judgment matter on merit effectively. 3 4. The said order was assailed by the plaintiff in the present Civil Revision Petition on the ground that the respondent herein-defendant is habituated in signing in the official records in one manner and to avoid payment of suit promissory note debt, she might have signed in another manner mischievously contrary to the signature in official records, but she was physically present and received consideration from the petitioner herein-plaintiff, but however, the Court below has erred in allowing the said I.A. filed to send the document for Expert’s opinion and it is the burden on the petitioner herein-plaintiff to prove the suit promissory note and the Court below has erroneously allowed the said I.A. Hence, prayed to set aside the order dated 08.12.2023 in I.A.No.270 of 2023 in O.S.No.43 of 2023. 5. In Thiruvengadam Pillai v. Navaneethammal1, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that it is risky to arrive at a conclusion regarding signatures and handwriting without an expert opinion. The relevant paragraph is extracted below: "While there is no doubt that Court can compare the disputed handwriting/signature/finger impression with the admitted handwriting/signature/finger impression, such comparison by Court without the assistance of any expert, has always been considered to be hazardous and risky. When it is said that there is no bar to a Court to compare the disputed finger impression with the admitted finger impression, it goes without saying that it can record an opinion or finding on such comparison, only after an analysis of the characteristics of the admitted finger impression 1 (2008) 4 SCC 530 4 and after verifying whether the same characteristics are found in the disputed finger impression. The comparison of the two thumb impressions cannot be casual or by a mere glance. Further, a finding in the judgment that there appeared to be no marked differences between the admitted thumb impression and disputed thumb impression, without anything more, cannot be accepted as a valid finding that the disputed signature is of the person who has put the admitted thumb impression. Where the Court finds that the disputed finger impression and admitted thumb impression are clear and where the Court is in a position to identify the characteristics of fingerprints, the Court may record a finding on comparison, even in the absence of an expert's opinion. But where the disputed thumb impression is smudgy, vague or very light, the Court should not hazard a guess by a casual perusal." 6. In Ajay Kumar Parmar v. State of Rajasthan2, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the Courts while dealing with handwriting or signatures cannot itself act as an Expert. The relevant paragraph is extracted below: "The opinion of a handwriting expert is fallible/liable to error like that of any other witness, and yet, it cannot be brushed aside as useless. There is no legal bar to prevent the Court from comparing signatures or handwriting, by using its own eyes to compare the disputed writing with the admitted writing and then from applying its own observation to prove the said handwritings to be the same or different, as the case may be, but in doing so, the Court cannot itself become an expert in this regard and must 2 (2012) 12 SCC 406 5 refrain from playing the role of an expert, for the simple reason that the opinion of the Court may also not be conclusive. Therefore, when the Court takes such a task upon itself, and findings are recorded solely on the basis of comparison of signatures or handwritings, the Court must keep in mind the risk involved, as the opinion formed by the Court may not be conclusive and is susceptible to error, especially when the exercise is conducted by one, not conversant with the subject. The Court, therefore, as a matter of prudence and caution should hesitate or be slow to base its findings solely upon the comparison made by it. However, where there is an opinion whether of an expert, or of any witness, the Court may then apply its own observation by comparing the signatures, or handwritings for providing a decisive weight or influence to its decision." 7. Therefore, on perusal of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforementioned judgments, the Court can normally seek expert opinion, when there is predicament situation where they have to compare admitted and disputed signatures. In a case where even a slightest doubt arises, the Court should not hesitate to send the admitted and disputed signatures for expert opinion under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. The Court can refuse to send to opinion of the expert where the Court finds that the disputed finger impression and admitted thumb impression are clear and the Court is in a position to identify the characteristics of fingerprints, the Court may record a finding on comparison, even in the absence of an expert's opinion. The trial Court has opined that the suit document be sent to the expert opinion, so that the Court can come to a definite conclusion about the signature and can 6 render judgment effectively. This Court is of the opinion that the trial Court will send the disputed signature with admitted signature on the contemporaneous document and not with admitted signature obtained subsequent to the date of disputed signature, otherwise by lapse of time, there may be some difference or variation in the signature of a person. 8. The trial Court has given valid reasons in allowing the I.A.No.270 of 2023 filed to send the suit promissory note for Expert’s opinion. No interference is required by this Court, as there is no flaw in the impugned order passed by the Court below. 9. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 28.01.2025 siva 7 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3062 of 2024 Date: 28.01.2025 siva