Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1358 (AP)

Doosi Rama Rao v. Puttutu Munirathnam Reddy

2023-09-29

K.MANMADHA RAO

body2023
JUDGMENT 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner against the Order, dtd. 25/1/2016 passed in I.A.No.1668 of 2015 in O.S No.289 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti (for short "the trial Court"). 2. Heard Sri P.C. Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri N. Bharath Babu, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. The present impugned I.A.No.1668 of 2015 in O.S No.289 of 2008 was filed by the petitioner under Sec. 45 of Indian Evidence Act seeking to send the agreement Ex.A1 along with the admitted signatures of the defendant to the Government handwriting expert, Forensic Science Laboratory to compare his signatures on the Ex.A1 with the admitted signatures of the petitioner are one and same. 4. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent denied his signature on the agreement of Sale dtd. 24/3/1997 which was marked as Ex.A3 and the scribe and attestor of the document who examined as PWs.2 and 3 were gained over by the defendant and they did not support his case, hence it is just and necessary for him to send the document to the handwriting expert along with admitted signatures of the defendant available on record. Hence, the petitioner filed present I.A before the trial Court. But the trial Court has dismissed the said I.A. on the ground that there are no grounds to allow the same. Challenging the same, the present civil revision petition has been filed. 5. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents made in the affidavit, submits that, the Court below erred in dismissing the IA on the ground that the contemporaneous documents containing the signature of the defendant in ex.A3 pertaining to the year 1997 are not available though the admitted signatures of the defendant are available on the vakalat and written statement. He further submits that the trial Court ought to have seen that the scribe and attestor of the Ex.A3 were examined as PW.2. and PW.3 who did not speak about the execution of Ex.A3 by the defendant and as they were gained over by the defendant and as such it is essential for the petitioner to send the Ex.A3 document for expert opinion to substantiate the defendant had executed Ex.A3 agreement of sale. 6. and PW.3 who did not speak about the execution of Ex.A3 by the defendant and as they were gained over by the defendant and as such it is essential for the petitioner to send the Ex.A3 document for expert opinion to substantiate the defendant had executed Ex.A3 agreement of sale. 6. To support his contentions learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad reported in (i) Velaga Sivarama Krishna v. Velaga Veerabhadra rao and another, 2009 (1) ALD 265 wherein it was held that "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." (ii) In Valladasu Alivelu v. Moguthula Yadaiah and another, 2010(4) ALD 484 wherein it was held that "Evidence Act 1872 Sec. 45 - comparison of expert - application for, dismissal of, on ground that plaintiff came up with said application to delay proceedings in main suit, improprietypetitioner/plaintiff filed petition to send document to handwriting expert on 16/11/2009 ...it cannot be said that petition moved by the petitioner, within two months of marking Ex.B1 is to drag on proceedings in suit." 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the trial Court rightly dismissed the said application as there are no grounds and hence the present civil revision also liable for dismissal. He relied upon a decision of this Court in CRP No.1255 of 2021, dtd. 15/2/2023, wherein this Court has allowed the revision petition and held that " directed the petitioner therein to produce the documents containing her authenticated and admitted signatures originated prior to Ex.A1 pronote, in which case the trial Court shall refer such documents along with Ex.A1 to the handwriting expert for his opinion." 8. Sec. 45 of Evidence Act, 1872 (for short "the Act"), reads as under: Sec. 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, 1[or finger impressions], the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, 2[or in questions as to identity of handwriting] 1[or finger impressions ]are relevant facts. Such persons are called experts. 9. Such persons are called experts. 9. On a perusal of the above Sec. , a document can be sent to the Handwriting Expert for the purpose of comparison of handwriting or signatures on the disputed documents. Sec. 73 of the Act reads as under: Sec. 73 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872: 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. 1[This Sec. applies also, with any necessary modifications, to fingerimpressions." 10. On a perusal of the above Sec. , the Court can compare the signatures on the disputed document with the admitted signatures. 11. In the present case, the petitioner has filed an I.A immediately as soon as the PWs.2 and 3 were cross examined i.e., in the month of September 2015 and as such there is no delay on the part of the petitioner in filing application under Sec. 45 of Evidence Act. PW.2 who is the scribe of the Ex.A3 who deposed that he does not know the contents of the document at the time of scribing the document the plaintiff alone present, which is evident to show that PW.2 has gained over by the respondent. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court observed that, 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 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. 13. In view of the above circumstances, this Court is of the view that it is essential to send the document to the expert for comparison at the request of the party in the interest of justice, which cannot cause any amount of prejudice to the defendants, in the present case. Therefore, the order of the trial court is liable to be set aside. 14. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned Order, dtd. 25/1/2016 passed in I.A.No.1668 of 2015 in O.S No.289 of 2008 by the trial Court, Further, the trial Court is directed to send Ex.A1 along with admitted signatures of the defendant to the handwriting expert for comparison, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of report from the Handwriting expert, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.289 2008, as expeditiously, as possible, preferably within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. 15. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.