Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1051 (AP)

Matta Sriramamurthy v. Arepalli Srirama Murthy

2014-08-22

R.KANTHA RAO

body2014
Judgment This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.85 of 2007 against the order dated 12.03.2014 passed in I.A.No.478 of 2012 in O.S.No.85 of 2007 by the learned IV Additional District Judge, Tanuku. I have heard Sri J.Sreenivasa Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/plaintiff and Sri Siva Sankara Rao, Borra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ defendant. The brief facts, necessary for considering this Civil Revision Petition, are that the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 10.05.2006. The defendant filed written statement contending, inter alia, that the signatures on the agreement were forged, the agreement was allegedly executed at Tanuku town, but the defendant was at Bangalore on the relevant date. After framing of issues, the trial of the suit was commenced, the plaintiff’s evidence was closed and the defendant was also examined as D.W.1. At that stage, the defendant filed an interlocutory application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, seeking to send Ex.A.1 agreement of sale to the Handwriting Expert for comparison of the signatures thereon with his admitted signatures. The said interlocutory application was opposed on the ground that it was filed at a belated stage and that the defendant did not file any contemporaneous documents containing the signatures of the defendant into the Court. The trial Court having gone through the submissions made on either side, allowed the said interlocutory application and issued a direction to the defendant to produce the documents containing his admitted signatures for the purpose of sending them to the Handwriting Expert for comparison with the disputed signatures. The said order is impugned in the present civil revision petition. Here is a case wherein the defendant took a specific plea in the written statement that he was not in Tanuku town on the alleged date of execution of Ex.A.1 agreement of sale and that he was at Bangalore and therefore the signatures on Ex.A.1 agreement of sale are forged. The defendant, however, did not file the interlocutory application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send the document for the opinion of the Handwriting Expert, either before the commencement of trial or soon after the trial was commenced. More so, in the instant case, the defendant took a specific plea in the written statement that the signatures on Ex.A.1 agreement of sale are forged signatures. More so, in the instant case, the defendant took a specific plea in the written statement that the signatures on Ex.A.1 agreement of sale are forged signatures. Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act enables the Court to compare the signatures of a party so as to form an opinion as to the genuineness of the signatures. However, if the Court thinks that such an exercise can be done in a better and appropriate way with the aid of the opinion of Handwriting Expert, it can send the document to the Handwriting Expert for comparison and opinion. The learned counsel appearing for petitioner/plaintiff placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Chidara Uma Maheshwar Rao v. Methuku Janardhan ( 2013(6) ALD 314 ), wherein learned single Judge affirmed the order passed by the trial Court whereunder it declined to send the document to the Handwriting Expert on the ground that there was sufficient evidence relating to the execution of the document. In the said case, the trial Court thought that sending the document to the Handwriting Expert for his opinion is unnecessary and the same was affirmed by this Court having regard to the facts and circumstances of the said case. The said decision cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case. Before exercising powers under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act to form an opinion by comparing the handwriting or signature of a party, it would be always proper to take the assistance of Handwriting Expert. The Court will be in a better position to form an appropriate opinion, if it is aided by the Handwriting Expert. In the instant case, the Court thought it fit to have the opinion of the Handwriting Expert even though it has power under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act to compare the signatures of the defendant. The order passed by the trial Court, therefore, does not call for any interference in the present civil revision petition. Consequently, the present civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel to it, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this revision, shall stand closed.