The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that handwriting on a disputed document cannot be sent to expert for comparison with the signatures on Vakalatnama and Written Statement as these are not assured standard documents.

The single-judge bench of Justice Ninala Jayasurya while adjudicating upon a Revision Petition filed in a suit for recovery ruled that no time limit is fixed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for sending disputed writings to the handwriting expert and it can be done at any stage of trial.

The petitioner herein is defendant in the said suit filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,71,600/- with future interest and costs. The petitioner/defendant filed written statement, inter alia, contending that the suit promissory note is forged document and his signatures were forged. After examination of P.Ws 1 and 2 on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff, the matter was posted for defendant’s evidence. At that stage, the petitioner filed I.A. under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to send Ex.A.1 promissory note to the handwriting expert by receiving specimen writings in the four promissory notes which are annexed to the said application and to receive his specimen signatures in the open Court along with the vakalatnama and written statement for comparison. The respondent/plaintiff filed counter and opposed the said application. After considering the matter, the learned Trial Court dismissed the said application. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the view taken by the learned Trial Court that the application is filed only to drag on the proceedings is un-sustainable. He further submitted that the view of the learned Trial Court that the petitioner/defendant ought to have taken steps before commencement of Trial or prior thereto is untenable and contrary to the well settled principles of Law.

Relying on Gulam Ghouse and Ors., v. Madarse Jeelania Shama-Ul-Uloom, 2007, he contended that the application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act can be made at any stage.

Contrary, Learned Counsel for the Respondent supported the order under revision inter alia stating that the conduct of the petitioner/defendant disentitles him for securing the relief sought for. He contended that though the petitioner/defendant has taken a plea of forgery, he has not chosen to file any application seeking opinion of the expert with reference to suit promissory note at the earliest point of time.

The legal question before the the Court to settle was whether the order of the Trial Court warrants interference and the application for referring the documents for expert opinion as sought for deserves to be allowed, in the facts and circumstances of the case?

The Court at the outset observed that the application filed by the petitioner/defendant was negatived primarily on the ground that he has not taken steps seeking to refer the suit promissory note (Ex.A.1) for expert opinion before commencement of Trial or prior thereto, but, after closure of the evidence on the plaintiff’s side and as such the application is liable to be dismissed.

It observed that the Trial Court's view is not tenable in the light of SC Judgement in Bande Siva Shankara Srinivasa Prasad @ Ravi Surya Prakash Babu, 2016 via which, it was held:

"No time limit could be fixed for filing applications under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for sending the disputed signature or writings to the handwriting expert 3 for comparison and opinion and same shall be left open to the discretion of the Court; for exercising such discretion when exigencies so demand, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case”.

In light of the above, the Court dismissed the Criminal Revision Petition.

Read Order Here:

 

Picture Source :