THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.R.P.NO.203 OF 2010 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 08.12.2009, passed by the court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore in I.A.No.813/2009 in O.S.No.41/2005, the present revision is filed. 3. By the impugned order, the court below allowed the application filed by the defendant under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, read with Section 151 C.P.C. to send the disputed signature on Ex.A-1 agreement of sale to a handwriting expert for opinion. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff in the suit, who filed the suit for specific performance, filed the present revision. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff vehemently contended that the suit agreement of sale is of the year 1983 and no contemporaneous signatures of the defendant were filed for comparison. Therefore, the disputed signature cannot be sent to a handwriting expert for opinion. In support of this contention, he relied on the judgment of a learned single Judge of this court reported in RENUKA DEVI KEDIA v. SEETHA DEVI[1]. He further contended that the defendant has denied her signature on the written statement and this shows that only in order to evade execution of sale deed and to protract the litigation, the present application is filed and the court below without considering the facts and circumstances, erroneously allowed the application and the same is liable to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/defendant supporting the impugned order sought for dismissal of the revision. 6. The petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale and the defendant who filed the written statement, has denied execution and stated that her signature on the suit agreement is a created and rank forged one. The only contention of the defendant is that there are no contemporaneous signatures for comparison and hence no purpose would be served by sending the disputed signature to an expert for opinion. In the present case, as per case the petitioner/plaintiff in the counter filed to the I.A., that the respondent in the witness box has denied her signature on the written statement and admitted her signature on summon form, served acknowledgement, vakalat and the served acknowledgement sent to the petitioner to comply under Order 39, Rule 3(a) of C.P.C. In view of these circumstances, I am of the view, that non-availability of the contemporaneous signature of the defendant, cannot be a ground for rejection of the I.A., since, the experts would be in a position to render opinion, even if the signatory changes the pattern of the letters, even at the later point of time and this will assist the court to come to a just conclusion. In similar circumstances, when the court below rejected an application seeking to send the disputed signature to an expert for opinion, on the ground that the contemporaneous signature of the signatory are not available, a learned single Judge of this court in P.VENKATRAMANA v. M.VENKATARAMANA[2], set aside the order of the trial court therein and held as under: “5. It is no doubt permissible for a Court to undertake comparison of handwriting or signatures to certain extent. However, the Court had its own limitations in the matter of expressing any definite opinion, unless the facts are so glaring. Though the contemporaneous signature or the handwriting of a party, if available, would be of immense use for effective comparison, it is not as if, opinion cannot be expressed, in the absence of such material. Experts are known for their ability to give opinion, depending upon the manner of handwriting, slant, letters, etc. An expert would be in a position to render proper opinion, even if the signatory or author of writing changes the pattern, at a later point of time. That is the very essence of expertise. The reasons furnished by the trial court do not accord with the settled principles of law.” 7. In another judgment reported in VELAGA SIVARAMA KRISHNA v. VELAGA VEERABHADRA RAO[3], a learned single Judge of this court, considering the judgment relied on by the counsel for the petitioner herein (1supra) and the also considering the judgment of the Apex Court, held as under: “6. . . . The above legal position makes it clear that the expert’s opinion is not excluded from the purview of examination and it was opined that it will help the Court in exercising power of comparison under Section 73 of the Evidence Act. 7. Whenever a party disputes the signature of 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 opinion 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 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. After comparison, if the similarities of the disputed signature and the admitted signatures are very negligible, then the Court can formulate its opinion with the assistance of the expert’s report and by comparing the signatures whether the repot has to be accepted or not. But, if the opportunity is denied to the defendant and if the matter is carried to the Appellate Court, there is every likelihood of commenting that he did not avail the opportunity of filling an Application for sending the document for handwriting expert’s opinion, if he is so sure that the disputed signature does not belong to him.” 8. In view of the above judgments of this court, it is clear that opportunity of seeking an expert’s opinion shall not be denied to the defendant, who is disputing his signature on the agreement of sale and this will also not cause any prejudice to the petitioner/plaintiff. 9. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in the revision and the same is dismissed. No costs. AVS -------------------------------------- 27—10—2011 Note: Issue C.C. in one week. B/O [1] 2004(5) ALD 700 [2] 2009(5) ALT 113 [3] 2009(1) ALT 379