Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 392 (AP)

Chidella Venkateswarlu v. Gurram Pushpa Latha

2012-04-04

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

body2012
Judgment : This Civil Revision Petition is filed against Order, dated 30-01-2012, in IA.No.928 of 2011 in OS.No.31 of 2008, on the file of the Court of the learned V Additional District Judge, Ongole. The petitioner is defendant No.1 in the above-mentioned suit filed by respondent No.1 for recovery of certain amount based on a pronote. In the midst of the trial, after the petitioner was examined as DW.1, respondent No.1 has filed IA.No.928 of 2011 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short ‘the Act’), for sending the suit pronote for opinion of a handwriting expert by comparing the signature on the pronote with the admitted signature of the petitioner on the written statement. The petitioner has objected to the said application mainly on the ground that the same is belated and that it is not possible to compare the signature on the written statement, which was subscribed six years after the alleged execution of the suit pronote. The lower Court, having discussed the case law, allowed the application of respondent No.1. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/defendant No.1. At the hearing, Sri Ch.C.Krishna Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the lower Court has not properly considered the judgment of this Court in NimmagaddaPadmanabha Rao vs. Smt. Kosaraju Satyavathi ( AIR 2006 AP 233 ). Under Section 45 of the Act, the opinion of an expert is a relevant fact. The law is well settled that such opinions are not binding on the Court. But, at the same time, the Court, which lacks expertise, will be guided by such opinions even though the final conclusion rests with it. No doubt in NimmagaddaPadmanabha Rao (1 supra), the learned single Judge of this Court has expressed the view that the pattern of signatures keeps changing and that it is not safe to rely upon a disputed signature, which was subscribed 16 years prior to the admitted signature. In VelagaSivarama Krishna vs. Velaga Veerabhadra Rao and another ( 2009 (1) ALD 265 ), another learned Judge observed as under: “7. Whenever a party disputes the signature on a particular document, two remedies are open to him, either to request the court to compare the signatures or to file an Application to send the document to the expert for comparison. Whenever a party disputes the signature on a particular document, two remedies are open to him, either to request the court to compare the signatures or to file an Application to send the document to the expert for comparison. When the petitioner opted to file an Application to send the document to the handwriting expert, no prejudice will be caused to either party. When he is asserting that the signature is that of the said party, even though there is a gap between the disputed signatures and admitted signatures, a science has been developed to compare such signatures also by taking into consideration the direction of the strokes, the speed of writing, the pattern of writing etc., therefore, it cannot be said that no useful purpose will be served by sending the document to the expert. After comparison, if the similarities of the disputed signature and the admitted signatures are very negligible, then the Court can formulate its opinion with the assistance of the expert's report and by comparing the signatures whether the report has to be accepted or not. But, if the opportunity is denied to the defendant and if the matter is carried to the Appellate Court, there is every likelihood of commenting that he did not avail the opportunity of filing an Application for sending the document for handwriting expert's opinion, if he is so sure that the disputed signature does not belong to him.” This judgment was considered in NimmagaddaPadmanabha Rao (1 supra). The learned Judge, while not specifically differing with the said view, has distinguished the said judgment by observing that it is not clear as to whether the application for sending the disputed document for expert’s opinion was filed before the concerned witnesses were examined. It requires to be noticed that in NimmagaddaPadmanabha Rao (1 supra), admitted signature was subscribed 16 years after execution of the promissory note, the signature on which is disputed and sought to be compared with the admitted one. Moreover, it was the defendant, who filed the application before the civil Court for sending the document for expert’s opinion after evidence was recorded. The said application was dismissed by the lower Court. Moreover, it was the defendant, who filed the application before the civil Court for sending the document for expert’s opinion after evidence was recorded. The said application was dismissed by the lower Court. In the revision petition filed by the defendant on those set of facts, the learned Judge has confirmed the order of the lower Court, during the course of which he has expressed his opinion that there is bound to be some difference between the admitted and disputed signatures due to passage of long time. In my opinion, no hard and fast rule can be laid down on a matter of this nature. After all, the expert’s opinion will only have persuasive value and it is not conclusive and binding on the Court. Under Section 73 of the Act, the discretion is available with the Court itself to compare the signatures. In the course of adjudication of such dispute, the expert’s opinion will come as an aid to arrive at proper conclusion. Therefore, it is for the expert to give his opinion as to whether the two signatures are comparable even in case where there is a time lag between the admitted and disputed signatures. If there is any change in the pattern of signatures, there is no reason why the expert will not notice such change and give his opinion on this aspect also. I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by this Court in VelagaSivarama Krishna (2 supra). If the Court is satisfied with the pleadings of the parties and the facts of the case justify sending of the disputed document for expert’s opinion, its decision cannot be questioned only on the ground of existence of time lag between the admitted and disputed signatures. On a careful consideration of the reasons assigned by the lower Court, I am of the opinion that it has not committed any jurisdictional error in allowing the application of the respondent. On the above analysis, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, CRPMP.No.2200 of 2012, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.