Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 60 (AP)

Suthraya Prasada Rao v. Bogathi Jaya Rami Reddy

2009-02-11

G.ROHINI

body2009
ORDER This revision petition is directed against the order dated 29-09-2008 in I.A.No.321 of 2008 in O.S.No.85 of 2005 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Gooty. 2. The defendant is the Revision Petitioner. The plaintiff/respondent herein, filed the suit for recovery of money. The defendant in his written statement while contending that he had paid some amounts, produced EX.B-1 calculation memo of the year 1996 which was allegedly signed by the plaintiff. However the plaintiff denied the calculation memo as well as his alleged signatures on the said document. In the circumstances the defendant/revision petitioner filed I.A.No.481 of 2007 to send EX.B-1 for opinion of the Hand Writing expert along with the admitted signatures of the plaintiff on the vakalat, plaint and deposition. The said I.A was allowed and EX.B-1 was sent to the FSL for comparison along with the specimen signatures of the plaintiff, which were taken in the Court. However, FSL declined to give any opinion and returned the document on the ground that contemporaneous signatures of the year 1996 were not available. 3. Thereafter the petitioner filed I.A. No.321 of 2008 with a prayer to send EX.B-1 to another Hand Writing Expert along with the admitted signatures of the plaintiff on vakalat, plaint and deposition. The said application was dismissed by the Court below by order dated 29-09-2008 observing that as the contemporaneous signatures of the plaintiff were not available, no useful purpose would be served by sending the document in question to the Expert for his opinion. The said order is under challenge in this Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. 5. Ex. B-1 calculation memo is of the year 1996 and according to the defendant the alleged signatures of the plaintiff on the said documents were of the year 1996. However the specimen signatures of the plaintiff of the year 1996 were admittedly not available. Though the defendant sought comparison of the signatures on Ex. 5. Ex. B-1 calculation memo is of the year 1996 and according to the defendant the alleged signatures of the plaintiff on the said documents were of the year 1996. However the specimen signatures of the plaintiff of the year 1996 were admittedly not available. Though the defendant sought comparison of the signatures on Ex. B-1 with the admitted signatures of the plaintiff on the vakalat, plaint and deposition in the suit, the Court below while relying upon a decision of this Court in Smt. Renu Oevi Kedia v. Seetha Devi rejected the said application holding that no purpose would be served by comparing the signatures of the year 1996 with the signatures on the plaint and vakalat filed in the suit of the year 2005. 6. In Smt. Renu Devi Kedia case1, the defendant disputed the agreement of sale in a suit for specific performance contending that his signatures were forged. Accordingly he filed an application to send the suit agreement to Hand Writing Expert for examination of the disputed signatures. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff on the ground that the signatures on the suit agreement which were of the year 1995 could not be compared with the signatures of the defendant obtained in the Court in the year 2004 as there was every likelihood of some change in the signatures of the defendant after a gap of nine (9) years. Accepting the said contention this Court held that there was every possibility of the defendant disguising his style of signature so as to make them dissimilar with the disputed signatures on the suit agreement. Thus it was concluded that no useful purpose would be served in sending the suit agreement to the Expert for his opinion. 7. As could be seen it was a case where the defendant disputed his own signature on the suit agreement of the year 1995. He filed the application for comparison of his own signature on the suit agreement with his specimen signatures of the year 2004. In the said circumstances it was held .by this Court that there was every possibility of the defendant disguising his style of signature so as to make them dissimilar with the disputed signatures. 8. However, in the instant case the defendant while contesting the suit claim relied upon a calculation memo of the year 1996 which contained the signatures of the plaintiff. 8. However, in the instant case the defendant while contesting the suit claim relied upon a calculation memo of the year 1996 which contained the signatures of the plaintiff. It is true that the signatures of the plaintiff on the said document were of the year 1996 and contemporaneous signatures of the plaintiff of the year 1996 are not available for comparison. However, that cannot be a justifiable ground to reject the request of the defendant to send the document in question for comparison with the admitted signatures of the plaintiff. 9. It is relevant to note that the plaintiff signed on the plaint and vakalat in the suit much prior to filing of the written statement in which the defendant pleaded about the payments under Ex. B-1 calculation memo. As such it is not possible for the plaintiff to disguise his signatures deliberately on the vakalat and the plaint. Hence the Court below was not justified in holding that no useful purpose would be served by sending the signatures on Ex. B-1 to an Expert for comparison with the admitted signatures of the plaintiff on the plaint and vakalat. 10. The learned counsel for the respondent while contending that the conclusion of the Court below is unassailable, placed much reliance upon a decision of this Court in Nimmagadda Padmanabha Rao v. Smt. Kosaraju Satyavathf. There can be no dispute about the ratio laid down in the said decision that the Court can take judicial notice of the fact that with passage of time, the pattern of signatures keeps on changing and that the disputed signatures have to be compared by an Expert with the admitted signatures of the contesting party in the document of contemporary period. 11. However the discretion has to be exercised by the Court judiciously having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. In case the court is satisfied that there is no possibility for changing the signatures deliberately, there is no bar as such to direct comparison of the disputed signatures with admitted signatures, which were obtained even after a long gap. 12. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the request of the defendant for comparison of the disputed signatures of the plaintiff on Ex. 12. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the request of the defendant for comparison of the disputed signatures of the plaintiff on Ex. B-1 with his admitted signatures of the - year 2005 on the vakalat and plaint in the suit cannot be declined merely on the ground that the admitted signatures are not of the contemporary period. 13. Accordingly the order under revision is hereby set aside and I.A.No.321 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Gooty is allowed as prayed for. 14. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.