Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1483 (PNJ)

R. P. Chhabra v. R. K. Arora

2014-11-03

BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON

body2014
JUDGMENT Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J. - The respondent-plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 35,000/- along with interest thereon @ 12% per annum. In letters written to the plaintiff, he had acknowledged the factum of he being indebted to the petitioner-defendant for repayment of the loan. 2. During the course of evidence, one document (Annexure P-4) was put to the respondent-plaintiff but he denied the same. Sequelly, an application was moved by the applicant-defendant for obtaining specimen handwriting and signatures of the plaintiff so that a comparison could be made by the handwriting expert from the admitted or specimen signatures and writing of the respondent with the disputed signatures and writing on the document (Annexure P-4). 3. The court below making a bold assertion that there was no provision under the Civil Procedure Code whereby the civil court could pass any direction to a party to give specimen signature and handwriting declined the request of the petitioner-defendant on 12.5.2012. This order (Annexure P-8) is under challenge in this revision petition. 4. Perusal of the impugned order along with application of the petitioner-defendant and reply of the plaintiff leave no manner of doubt that approach of the lower court had been very casual and perfunctory. For convenience and clarity, it would be important to refer to provisions of Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as the Evidence Act) which for ready reference is reproduced as below: "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 medication, to finger-impressions)" 5. 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 medication, to finger-impressions)" 5. There does not remain any dispute that the court can always call upon a party to give his specimen handwriting and signatures for the purpose of comparison with the disputed signatures and handwriting so as to reach to a conclusion for adjudication of the matter in controversy. 6. At this stage, reference to Section 45 of the Evidence Act would also be necessary and the same is reproduced 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 or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, or in questions as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions are relevant facts. Such persons are called experts. 7. Section 45 of the Evidence Act relates to "opinions of experts". It provides, interalia, that when the court has to form an opinion as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinion upon that point of persons specially skilled in the field as to identity handwriting or finger impressions are relevant facts. Reference in this regard may be made to Thiruvengada Pillai v. Navaneethammal and another 2008(2) RCR (Civil) 262 (Supreme Court). 8. The matter of comparison of signatures and disputed signatures and handwriting had been agitating the minds of the courts quite often. In Sheo Narain and another v. Rawat 1985 (1) PLR 47 (P&H)., it was specifically held that the court is empowered to call upon a party to give his specimen signatures, handwriting or thumb impressions and request could not be declined merely on the ground that it had been made by a party to the litigation and could be used as evidence by such party. In Guru Nanak Construction Company v. M/s Jai Bharat Steel Rolling Mills 1976 RLR 648 (P&H), it was held by the Division Bench of this Court that the court can even issue direction to a party to furnish specimen signatures for comparison with disputed ones. In Guru Nanak Construction Company v. M/s Jai Bharat Steel Rolling Mills 1976 RLR 648 (P&H), it was held by the Division Bench of this Court that the court can even issue direction to a party to furnish specimen signatures for comparison with disputed ones. In paras 6 and 7 of this judgment, it was held as under: "6. From the above referred to provisions, it is clear that the opinions of the Expert Witnesses become relevant when the identity of handwriting or signatures is in dispute. Section 73 of the Act empowers the Court to 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. The earlier part of provisions of Section 73 provides that 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. This would show that in order to adjudicate upon the disputed signatures, writing or seal, any signature, writing or seal, admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court, to have been written or made by that person, can be compared with the disputed ones. It is in this back ground that the Court has been given power to 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. In our considered opinion, the bare reading of both these provisions show that the Court has been empowered to direct any person to give specimen signatures or handwriting with a view to get the same compared with the disputed ones. This power may be exercised by the Court for its own satisfaction or even on an application being made by any party to the proceedings. This power may be exercised by the Court for its own satisfaction or even on an application being made by any party to the proceedings. If these Sections are interpreted to mean that this can only be done by the Court for its own satisfaction, that would be perpetuate injustice. In that case persons who may have written or signed valuable documents and on mere denial on their behalf about the said documents having been signed or written, would render the aggrieved party without the remedy of getting the disputed signatures or writing compared and proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the said documents were signed or written by the defaulting party. The provisions have to be interpreted so as to give the fullest meaning with a view to do justice between the parties. When a dispute regarding the signatures or writing on a document is before the Court, it is always the endeavour of the Court to reach at the correct conclusion and without this power having been exercised, whether suo motu or at the instance of the aggrieved party, the decision on these matters, is likely to be made without the assistance of the experts inspite of such expert's evidence having been made relevant under the provisions of Section 45 of the Act. 7. The power under Section 73 of the Act can be exercised for issuing directions to any person present in Court. The proviso to Order 3, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, provides that though a party is appearing by a recognised agent or by a pleader in a case, the Court can always direct party to appear in Court in person when the need arises. Therefore, the combined reading of proviso to Order 3, Rule, 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, and Sections 45 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, makes it abundantly clear that in a proper case the Court has got power to direct the person concerned to appear give his signatures and handwriting so that the comparison can be made in order to arrive at the correct conclusion as to whether the disputed documents were signed or written by the person who denied to have done so. Similar view has been taken in M. Narayanaswami v. Yangatanna, AIR 1975 Andhra Pradesh 88." 9. Similar view has been taken in M. Narayanaswami v. Yangatanna, AIR 1975 Andhra Pradesh 88." 9. In yet another case Kirpal Singh and another v. Vipin Kumar 2008 (1) RCR (Civil) 669, one co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held in paras 9 and 10 of judgment as below: "9. Section 45 empowers the Court to rely upon opinion of handwriting expert and such opinion is a relevant fact. Section 73 further empowers the Court to compare signatures or writing of any person and also to direct any person present in the Court to write any word or figure to enable the Court to compare the same with the words and figures alleged to have been written by the person who is stated to have written the document. The mere fact that a person is unwilling, does not in any manner, dis-empower the Court from issuing appropriate direction or to secure his signatures or thumb impressions. The issue is no more res integra having been concluded by a Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Guru Nanak Construction Company v. M/s. Jai Bharat Steel Rolling Mills, Jaitu, 1976 Current Law Journal (Civil) 447. 10. In view of the ratio of the aforesaid judgment and unambiguous language of Section 73, it becomes apparent that directions of the Court are not dependent upon the willingness of the party whose signatures or thumb impressions are sought to be procured for the purpose of comparison by the expert. The Court in appropriate case may even issue directions to a party to the lis to give his signatures and/or thumb impressions or handwriting for comparison and expert opinion." 10. To the same effect is Abdul Sattar v. Bashir, 2006 (2) RCR (Civil) 535 (P&H). 11. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances as mentioned earlier, it is a clear case where the learned lower court has committed illegality in dismissing the application (Annexure P-6) of the petitioner-defendant. 12. Sequelly, accepting the present revision petition and setting aside the impugned order dated 12.5.2012 (Annexure P-8) of the lower court, application (Annexure P-6) filed by the petitioner-defendant is allowed. 13. The lower court would summon the respondent-plaintiff to give his specimen handwriting and signatures to enable it to get the same compared from a handwriting and fingerprint expert of the petitioner defendant.