1 (VS,J C.R.P.Nos._1310 & 1332_2024) THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS: 1310 and 1332 of 2024 COMMON ORDER: C.R.P.No.1310 has been filed by the petitioner/defendant challenging the docket order dated 09.01.2024 passed in I.A.No.636 of 2022 in O.S.No.307 of 2018 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati, whereby the petition filed under Order XVI Rules 1 and 7 read with Order XIII Rule 10 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’), seeking production of certain documents from the Bank of Baroda, Annamaiah Circle Branch, AIR Bypass Road, Tirupati, was dismissed. 2. C.R.P.No.1332 has been filed by the petitioner/defendant challenging the order dated 09.01.2024 passed in I.A.No.635 of 2022 in O.S.No.307 of 2018 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati, whereby the petition filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to send the disputed signatures along with the admitted signatures to a handwriting expert for comparison, was dismissed. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.No.307 of 2018 for recovery of an amount under Ex.A1- promissory note allegedly executed by the revision petitioner/defendant on 2 (VS,J C.R.P.Nos._1310 & 1332_2024) 02.02.2017 for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-. The revision petitioner/defendant filed a written statement contending that the plaint is concocted and based on a forged and fabricated promissory note, i.e., Ex.A1, which was created through the kith and kin of the plaintiff in order to counter the suit filed by him in O.S.No.62 of 2018 on the file of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati, for recovery of money against the plaintiff and his wife, Smt. G. Gunasundari. It is alleged that to overcome the said suit, the present suit was filed. 4. While the suit was posted for the defendant’s evidence, the revision petitioner/defendant filed I.A.Nos.635 and 636 of 2022, seeking to send the disputed signatures along with the admitted signatures to a handwriting expert for comparison, as they are necessary for proper adjudication of the case. However, the said applications were dismissed by the trial Court by a common order dated 09.01.2024, which were impugned in the present revision petitions. Aggrieved by the order dated 09.01.2024 passed in the aforesaid I.As., the petitioner filed these revisions. 5. Heard Sri K.Naresh, learned counsel for the petitioner in both the revisions. Though notice was served on the respondent, there is no appearance on his behalf. 3 (VS,J C.R.P.Nos._1310 & 1332_2024) 6. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that the suit promissory note is forged and fabricated document, as such, I.A.No.635 of 2022 was filed under Section 45 of the Act, 1872 with a plea to send the promissory note dated 02.02.2017 to the handwriting expert for comparing of disputed signatures on EX.A1- promissory notes along with the admitted signatures. But, the Court below, in the impugned order wrongly came to the conclusion that the petition has been filed only to drag the proceedings. As such, learned counsel requested to allow the present petitions. 7. On a perusal of the impugned orders dated 09.01.2024 passed in both the interlocutory applications, it is observed that the Court below found that the petitioner had maintained complete silence regarding the non-availability of his standard or contemporaneous handwriting and signatures, that there were no bonafide grounds to send Ex.A1-promissory note to the handwriting expert for comparison, and that the petitioner failed to produce any material or document to substantiate that the list of documents sought was available with the Bank. The Court also observed that it is a settled principle of law that the opinion of a handwriting expert is not conclusive, but only serves as an aid to the Court in arriving at a proper conclusion, thereby dismissed both applications filed by the petitioner/defendant. 4 (VS,J C.R.P.Nos._1310 & 1332_2024) 8. As the application in I.A.No.635 of 2022 filed by the petitioner under Section 45 of the Evidence Act was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 09.01.2024, 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. (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 5 (VS,J C.R.P.Nos._1310 & 1332_2024) 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 6 (VS,J C.R.P.Nos._1310 & 1332_2024) that courts cannot act as experts in all the cases, unless 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 1 (2012) 12 SCC 406 7 (VS,J C.R.P.Nos._1310 & 1332_2024) 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." 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 and fabricated one. Therefore, 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 a specific denial by the petitioner/defendant that his signatures were forged, it is not safe for the trial Court to come to a conclusion that the petitioner/defendant failed to explain the reasons properly in sending Ex.A1/promissory note to handwriting expert for comparison. The said finding is contrary to the 8 (VS,J C.R.P.Nos._1310 & 1332_2024) 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 for comparison. 13. Moreover, the suit is at the stage of defendant’s side evidence, hence it cannot be held that the application is filed at the fag end. It is for the handwriting expert to say whether the signature on Ex.A1- promissory note can be matched with that of the signature on the disputed document or not. Moreover, Court will also take admitted signatures of the petitioner in the Court and will send the same to the handwriting expert for comparison and it is the case of the petitioner from the beginning that promissory note is forged, burden lies on him to prove the said fact, as such he had also filed an application for sending the document to the handwriting expert and it cannot be dismissed on presumptions and assumptions. 14. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, C.R.P.No.1332 of 2024 is allowed, and the impugned order dated 09.01.2024 passed in I.A.No.635 of 2022 in O.S.No.307 of 2018 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati, is hereby set aside. The I.A.No.635 of 2022 is restored to its file and remanded back to the trial Court. 9 (VS,J C.R.P.Nos._1310 & 1332_2024) 15. The trial Court shall send Ex.A1 – promissory note dated 02.02.2017, to a qualified handwriting expert for comparison of the disputed signatures with the admitted signatures of the respondent/plaintiff, available on the vakalat, written statement, and also the signatures to be obtained in open Court, for the purpose of rendering an opinion as to its genuineness for proper adjudication of the matter. The trial Court shall also direct the expert to furnish a detailed report, along with the reasons and the basis of comparison, as mandated under law. C.R.P.No.1310 of 2024 : 16. In view of the orders passed in C.R.P.No.1332 of 2024, no separate orders are required to be passed in C.R.P.No.1310 of 2024. Accordingly, C.R.P.No.1310 of 2024 stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date: 07.11.2025 RPD. 10 (VS,J C.R.P.Nos._1310 & 1332_2024) 188 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS: 1310 and 1332 of 2024 Date: 07.11.2025 RPD.