IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.811 of 2007 Between: M/s. Ananth Gas Services and others ..Petitioners AND M/s. Canara Bank, a Nationalised Bank, Sainikpuri Branch, Secunderabad. .. Respondent ORDER: None appeared for the revision petitioners and Sri S. Lakshmikanth, learned counsel representing Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee, learned standing counsel for the respondent is heard. This revision is directed against the order in I.A.No.66 of 2007 in I.A.No.216 of 2006 in O.S.No.44 of 2005 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon, dated 8-2-2007 dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioners for forwarding the documents submitted by them to Forensic Science Laboratory for comparison with the disputed signatures. The suit for recovery of money by the bank was resisted, among other things, by the revision petitioners, questioning the genuineness of signatures of the 2nd defendant on the suit documents and the defendants filed I.A.No.216 of 2006 to send the disputed signatures and the admitted signatures of the 2nd defendant for comparison by a handwriting expert, which was allowed on 03-07-2006. The Forensic Science Laboratory requested the Court to forward the admitted signatures of the 2nd defendant relating to the year 2000 written in the normal course of business, but the 2nd defendant was unable to submit any such signatures to the Court earlier and consequently, the Forensic Science Laboratory returned the documents to the Court. The defendants came up with this petition contending that after thorough search, the 2nd defendant could trace some correspondence and subscription vouchers, which were written and signed by him in the normal course of business, which were submitted for comparison with the admitted signatures by the handwriting expert. This request was opposed by the bank contending that the defendants did not avail the opportunity granted earlier by the court and earlier the 2nd defendant declared that no other documents were available except the promissory note and the documents now produced are obviously not genuine and brought into existence to serve the purpose of the defence in the suit. The trial Court passed the impugned order on consideration of rival contentions noting the earlier events and observing that the 2nd defendant positively filed a memo into Court on 11-10-2006 stating that no signatures made in 2000 in the normal course of business were available and he was, hence, unable to furnish such signatures for the purpose of comparison. It is only then the Court obtained the documents back from the Forensic Science Laboratory and it is mysterious as to how he came into possession of the present documents containing the alleged signatures made in the usual course of business in 2000. In the absence of any satisfactory answer to that query, the trial Court considered the petition to be not bona fide and dismissed the petition without costs. In the revision, the defendants contend that the specific defence of the defendants is that the 2nd defendant did not sign the documents in question and the fact that the documents could not be traced earlier should be taken into account in considering the request of the defendants to send them for comparison. The point for consideration is whether the documents can be considered to be sent to a handwriting expert for comparison? Though the defendants did not produce the documents in question, which are now sought to be sent for comparison, earlier in spite of more than a reasonable opportunity, their request could not have been rejected solely on the suspicion arising out of such belated production of documents. The defence of the defendants throughout was that the 2nd defendant never subscribed his signatures to the suit documents. The admitted and disputed signatures of the 2nd defendant were earlier forwarded to Forensic Science Laboratory and it was they that required any admitted signatures relating to the year 2000. The trial Court itself obviously then considered it just and necessary to have such comparison by a handwriting expert of the admitted and disputed signatures, and therefore, the necessity to have such assistance of the opinion of a handwriting expert in this regard continues to exist even later. Though it is true that circumstances under which the documents in question are now sought to be produced by the defendants are not beyond suspicion, the same can be definitely considered by the trial Court on merits in accordance with law, while considering the acceptability or otherwise of such documents as the basis for comparison with the disputed signatures of the 2nd defendant and consequently, as the basis for the opinion of the handwriting expert. Without foreclosing such opinion, it will be in the interests of justice to permit the defendants to have an opportunity for sending the documents for comparison. It should also be noted that by filing the C.R.P. and obtaining an interim stay of further proceedings in the suit since 23-2-2007, the interests of the bank are suffering and if it is made clear that further progress in the trial of the suit need not be stalled till the receipt of the opinion of the handwriting expert, appropriate progress can be made in the trial, while at the same time the opinion of the expert obtained in the meanwhile will be available to the court for being considered at the time of determination of the suit on merits. Therefore, the order in I.A.No.66 of 2007 in I.A.No.216 of 2006 in O.S.No.44 of 2005 of the Senior Civil Judge, Janagaon, dated 08-02-2007 is set aside and the said petition is allowed and the documents be sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory for comparison of the admitted and disputed signatures accordingly. But, the further progress in the trial of the suit need not await the receipt of the opinion of the handwriting expert and the trial can go on. The Civil Revision Petition is ordered accordingly without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 05-08-2010 Ksn