1 APHC010585652022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2186/2022 Between: 1. MACHERLA JACOBU, MACHERLA JACOBU, S/O. YOBU, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 0CC. DRIVER IN APSRTC, HINDU, MACHARLA DEPOT AND MACHARLA, PALNADU DISTRICT, A.P. ...PETITIONER AND 1. RAPOLU RAMBABU, S/o. Ranganayakulu, Aged about 68 years, 0cc. Retired APSRTC Employee, Hindu, R/o. Nehru Nagar, Macharla Post and Mandal, Palnadu District, A.P. ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased topetitioners beg to present the Civil Revision Petition, aggrieved by the orders passed in I.A. No. 1194 of 2022 in 0.S. No. 42 of 2019 dated 23-09- 2022 on the file of the Honble Principal Junior civil judge, macharla IA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to stay of all further proceedings in I.A. No. 1194 of 2022 in 0.S. No. 42 of 2019 dated 23-09¬2022 pending disposal of the above C.R.P., and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 2 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to extend the interim Order, dt.19.04.2023 granted in C.R.P.No.2599 of 2022, in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G ELISHA Counsel for the Respondent: 1. S DILIP JAYA RAM The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner/defendant challenging the order dated 23.09.2022 passed in I.A.No.1194 of 2022 in O.S.No.42 of 2019 on the file of Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Macharla. 2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit against the petitioner/defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.5,15,400/-. In the said suit, the petitioner/defendant filed a written statement contending that the respondent/plaintiff is a dominating union in APSRTC and that few disputes arose between the petitioner/defendant and respondent/plaintiff; keeping in mind the said disputes, the respondent/defendant fabricated the suit promissory note and filed the aforesaid suit in order to gain wrongfully. Pending the said suit, when the matter was posted for further evidence of petitioner/defendant, the petitioner who examined himself as D.W.1, filed I.A.No.1194 of 2012 with a plea to send the suit promissory note (Ex.A.1) dated 23.01.2016 for scientific comparison with experts opinion with regard to his alleged signature over the suit promissory note with his admitted signature. The Court below, while observing that expert opinion is only a corroborative evidence and is not a conclusive proof, has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/defendant, vide order dated 23.09.2022. Challenging the same, the present revision petition is filed. 4 3. When the revision petition came up for hearing on 03.11.2022, this Court has granted interim stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.42 of 20219 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Macherla, initially for a period of eight weeks, which was extended thereafter from time to time. 4. Heard Sri. G. Elisha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. S. Dilip Jaya Ram, learned counsel for the respondent. 5. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the suit promissory note is forged document, as such, I.A.No.1194 of 2022 was filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with a plea to send the promissory note (Ex.A1) to the handwriting expert for comparing signatures. But, the Court below, in the impugned order wrongly came to the conclusion that the expert opinion is a weak piece of evidence and that Court below has the power to compare the disputed signature with admitted signature to decide its genuineness. As such, learned counsel requested to allow the present petition. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the impugned order passed by the Court below in all aspects and further submitted that the opinion of handwriting expert is not necessary and that the petitioner has filed the application before the Court below, only to drag on the proceedings. Hence, requested to dismiss the present petition. 7. On a perusal of the impugned order dated 23.09.2022, it can be observed that the Court below has observed that opinion of a hand writing 5 expert is a corroborative evidence and that the same is not conclusive proof. It further observed that if at all the suit promissory note is sent to the expert, his opinion only helps the oral evidence already adduced, as such, the Court below held that it is a weak piece of evidence. 8. As the application filed by the petitioner under Section 45 of the Evidence Act was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 23.09.2022, this Court feels it relevant to extract Sections - 45 and 73 of the Evidence Act and the same is as under: "45. Opinions of experts.--When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law or of science, or art, or as to identity of handwriting 2 [or finger impressions], the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, 3 [or in questions as to identity of handwriting] 2 [or finger impressions] are relevant facts. Such persons are called experts. Illustrations (a) The question is, whether the death of A was caused by poison. The opinions of experts as to the symptoms produced by the poison by which A is supposed to have died, are relevant. (b) The question is, whether A, at the time of doing a certain act, was, by reason of unsoundness of mind, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law. The opinions of experts upon the question whether the symptoms exhibited by A, commonly show unsoundness of mind, and whether such unsoundness of mind usually renders persons incapable of knowing the nature of the acts which they do, or of knowing that what they do is either wrong or contrary to law, are relevant. 6 (c) The question is, whether a certain document was written by A. Another document is produced which is proved or admitted to have been written by A. The opinions of experts on the question whether the two documents were written by the same person or by different persons, are relevant." "73. Comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved.—In order to ascertain whether a signature, writing, or seal is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written or made, any signature, writing, or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written or made by that person may be compared with the one which is to be proved, although that signature, writing, or seal has not been produced or proved for any other purpose. The Court may direct any person present in Court to write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare the words or figures so written with any words or figures alleged to have been written by such person. This section applies also, with any necessary modifications, to finger-impressions." 9. Section 45 of the Act, 1872, inter alia' provides that the Court can call for evidence of experts to form an opinion regarding the genuineness of signatures and handwriting which are relied on by one party and disputed by another party. It is also relevant to note that the power to seek expert opinion under Section 45 of the Act, 1872 is discretionary and depends on facts of each case. The Courts under Section 73 of the Act, 1872 can themselves compare the signatures or handwriting. However, the Supreme Court has time and again cautioned that courts cannot act as experts in all the cases, unless 7 it is glaringly clear that the signatures are same or are different, the Courts should normally call for an opinion from the experts. 10. In Ajay Kumar Parmar v. State of Rajasthan1, the Apex Court held that, the Courts while dealing with handwriting or signatures cannot itself act as an Expert. The relevant paragraph is extracted below: "28. 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 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." 1 (2012) 12 SCC 406 8 11. It can be understood from the above that the Courts shall normally seek expert opinion when they are posed with a situation where they have to compare admitted and disputed signatures. The Courts can refuse expert opinion only when no doubt exists regarding the genuineness of the signatures after comparison of the admitted and disputed signatures. In cases where even a slightest doubt exists, the Courts shall send the admitted and disputed signatures for expert opinion under Section 45 of the Act, 1872. 12. In the case on hand, as discussed above, the petitioner herein - defendant laid foundation by contending in the written statement that the suit promissory note was forged one. Admittedly, the object and purport of Section 45 of the Evidence Act is to be considered by the trial Court and this Court. When there is specific denial by the petitioner - defendant that his signature was forged, it is not safe for the trial Court to come to a conclusion that the it is only a corroborative evidence and is not a conclusive proof. The opinion of a handwriting expert shall not be brushed aside as useless. The Court cannot act as an expert by comparing signatures or handwriting in dispute by using its own eyes and must refrain from playing the role of an expert. In the present case, the Court below took such a task upon itself, which in the considered opinion of this Court is susceptible to error. The said finding is contrary to the object and purport of Section - 45 of the Evidence Act. As such, this Court is of the opinion that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent/plaintiff in obtaining expert opinion by sending Ex.A1 - promissory note. 9 13. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated 23.09.2022 in I.A. No.1194 of 2022 in O.S.No.42 of 2019 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Macherla, is set-aside. The trial Court shall send Ex.A1 – promissory note to the hand-writing expert to compare the signatures of the defendant on Ex.A1 - promissory note with the admitted signatures of defendant to be obtained in Open Court for giving opinion as to its genuineness for proper adjudication of the matter. The said process shall be completed within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 14. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date:12.09.2025 Gss