Telangana High Court
Gandepally Suvathsala vs Boddireddy Rajpal Reddy on 26 March, 2025
Author: G.Radha Rani
Bench: G.Radha Rani
THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.340 of 2022
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner - defendant
aggrieved by the order dated 24.01.2022 passed in I.A.No.190 of 2018 in
O.S.No.325 of 2012 by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal.
2. Heard Sri K.Ujwal Babu, counsel representing Sri Kowturu Pavan
Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner on record.
3. No representation for the respondent, though notice was served on the
respondent through the counsel representing him before the trial court.
4. As seen from the record, the respondent - plaintiff filed the suit for
recovery of an amount of Rs.2,47,600/- stating that the defendant and her
husband approached the plaintiff seeking loan of Rs.2,00,000/- to meet the
construction expenses of their house and the plaintiff advanced the said sum to
the defendant on 08.12.2010. The defendant executed a promissory note on the
same day acknowledging the receipt of the amount and agreed to repay the same
with interest @ 1.5 % per month, but failed to repay the borrowed amount with
accrued interest. As such, after issuing legal notice, filed the suit.
Dr.GRR, J
crp_340_2022
5. The defendant filed written statement denying borrowal of the amount or
executing the suit promissory note. She contended that she worked as
headmistress in various schools in Warangal District prior to her retirement.
During her tenure as headmistress, she used to issue various certificates like
salary certificates to her subordinates including teachers, who worked under her,
transfer certificates, study certificates to the students after subscribing her
signatures on them. The plaintiff somehow came into the possession of one of
such certificates, scanned the signature of the defendant and got the same
imprinted on the revenue stamps affixed on the suit promissory note, filled up
the blanks in it, as if she borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- from him and committed rank
forgery in bringing the promissory note into existence.
6. During the course of trial, the defendant filed I.A.No.190 of 2018 under
Order XLV read with Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to obtain her
sample signatures in open Court and to refer the same along with promissory
note dated 08.12.2010 to the handwriting expert for comparison of her
signatures with that of the signature attributed to her on the promissory note.
7. The respondent - plaintiff filed counter contending that the defendant
need to file contemporary signatures of the relevant period as on the date of
execution of promissory note to compare her signatures with that of the
Dr.GRR, J
crp_340_2022
signatures in the promissory note. But obtaining sample signatures before the
Court would not be of any use and prayed to dismiss the petition.
8. The trial court i.e. the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal,
on considering the contentions of both the learned counsel and on perusing the
record, observed that:
"It was not the case of the petitioner that the signature appearing on the suit
promissory note dated 08.12.2010 was not that of her. It is her version that
the respondent - plaintiff scanned her signature and got the same imprinted
on the revenue stamps affixed on the suit promissory note. So, even if the
signatures of the petitioner herein were obtained in the open Court and were
sent to the handwriting expert, for comparison, no purpose would be served
to the petitioner. Further, the signature on the suit promissory note was of
the year 2010, whereas the petitioner was asking the Court to obtain her
admitted signatures in the open Court and send the same to the handwriting
expert for comparison, the same was not permissible under law"
and dismissed the petition.
9. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the defendant preferred this revision.
10. The contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner was that
the trial Judge ought to have examined the scope of tampering by way of
scanning the signature and ought to have issued necessary directions to the
expert to elicit real truth for proper adjudication and relied upon the judgment of
erstwhile common High Court for the state of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in
Dr.GRR, J
crp_340_2022
Bande Siva Shankara Srinivasa Prasad v. Ravi Surya Prakash Babu and
Others 1 .
11. A 3-Judge Bench of the erstwhile common High Court of Telangana and
Andhra Pradesh in a matter under reference held that the Court was not barred
from sending disputed signature for comparison to an expert due to the long
time gap between the admitted signature and the disputed signature.
12. The 3-Judge Bench after framing several issues like:
a) Are contemporaneous handwritings / signatures always or normally
necessary for comparison and report?
b) What is the meaning of contemporaneous; and what is the measure of
contemporaniety?
c) Why are examiners of questioned documents frequently returning documents
sent to them for opinion, to the referring Court for contemporaneous signatures /
handwritings? Are current handwriting science / expert protocols in the area
incapable of comparing handwriting / signatures without contemporaneous
models for comparison; whether in all circumstances or only in specific
situations; and if in specific situations, what are the range of circumstances
where contemporaneous handwritings / signatures required for rendering an
opinion?
called for the report of the expert in the field i.e. the Director of Central
Forensic Science Laboratory, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad, asking him to call upon
AIR 2016 AP 118
Dr.GRR, J
crp_340_2022
the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents and after receiving the
report from them with all the relevant material, observed that:
"24. The gist of the experts' opinion, emerging from the above Report, is to
the effect that it is not always necessary to have contemporaneous
handwritings/signatures for comparison. However, as a general rule, it
would be desirable to undertake comparison of admitted
handwritings/signatures with disputed handwritings/signatures which fall
within the range of 2 or 3 years from each other. Therefore, there can be no
hard and fast norm as to when comparison can or cannot be undertaken
owing to the time lag between the two sets of handwritings/signatures.
Various other factors would have to be taken into consideration, as opined
by the experts, quoted hereinbefore. Each case would turn upon its own
facts and circumstances relating to the time lag, the change in the
handwriting/signature, the capability of correlating the two sets and
ultimately, the opinion of the expert himself as to whether the two sets can
be compared. It is therefore not open to the Court to refuse to entertain an
application seeking comparison of disputed handwritings/signatures with
admitted handwritings/ signatures on the ground of a long lapse of time
between the two sets of handwritings/signatures."
13. In the present case, the contention of the petitioner - defendant was that
the signature appearing on the suit promissory note was not that of her and that
the respondent - plaintiff scanned her signature and got the same imprinted on
the revenue stamps affixed on the suit promissory note. The expert would be in
a position to say whether the suit promissory note was containing the original
signature of the petitioner - defendant or whether it was a scanned signature,
which was imprinted on the revenue stamps affixed on the suit promissory note.
If he was not in a position to say so, he would be informing the Court by giving
Dr.GRR, J
crp_340_2022
his reasons. If the signatures obtained from the petitioner - defendant in the
open Court could not be compared with that of the signature on the suit
promissory note due to the long time gap, it was for the expert to say so. But
the trial court itself declining to obtain the signatures of the petitioner -
defendant or to refer the promissory note to the expert, would amount to nipping
the defence of the petitioner - defendant at the budding stage only.
14. As such, this Court is of the opinion that the trial court ought to have
allowed the petition instead of deciding itself that the same were incomparable
or that there was a long time gap. The observation of the trial court that the
petitioner asking the Court to obtain her admitted signatures in the open Court
and sending the same to the handwriting expert for comparison was not
permissible under law, is erroneous, since the law permits referring the matter to
an expert under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, when the
defendant is disputing her signature on the suit promissory note.
15. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order
dated 24.01.2022 passed in I.A.No.190 of 2018 in O.S.No.325 of 2012 by the
learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, directing the trial court to
obtain the signature of the petitioner - defendant in the open Court and to send
the same to the expert for comparison with the disputed signature on the suit
promissory note dated 08.12.2010. No order as to costs.
Dr.GRR, J
crp_340_2022
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this petition, if any,
shall stand closed.
____________________
Dr. G.RADHA RANI, J
Date: 26th March, 2025
Nsk
