THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.R.P.NO.4505 OF 2010 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 22.07.2010 passed by the court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore in I.A.No.397/2010 in O.S.No.342/2008 in dismissing the application filed by the plaintiff under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence to send Ex.A-2 to a handwriting expert for opinion, the present revision is filed. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff submitted that the suit was filed for cancellation of sale deed and general power of attorney alleged to have been executed by the plaintiff and for consequential injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. The case of the plaintiff is that she never executed Ex.A-2, which is the general power of attorney in favour of the 2nd defendant and the signature on the said document is a rank forgery. Therefore, in order to prove the case of the plaintiff and in order to assist the court in that regard, the plaintiff sought for sending the disputed signature on Ex.A-2 and admitted signatures on plaint, vakalat, chief examination and cross-examination, to an expert for opinion. The court below without appreciating the issue in right perspective and without recording any reasons, dismissed the application. He stated that absence of contemporaneous signature cannot be a ground for dismissing the I.A. and moreover, no prejudice would be caused to the defendants. In support of his contentions, he relied on the judgments reported in VELAGA SIVARAMA KRISHNA v. VELAGA VEERABHADRA RAO[1] and SUTHRAYA PRASADA RAO v. BOGATHI JAYA RAMI REDDY [2] . 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants vehemently contended that when the suit is filed for cancellation of the sale deed and G.P.A., in the year 2008, the plaintiff ought to have sought for sending the disputed signatures to an expert for opinion immediately before commencement of trial and in the year 2010 after the commencement of trial and after the closure of her evidence, seeking such relief is a belated attempt and to protract the litigation. He further submitted that the disputed signature on Ex.A-2, which is the Xerox copy, is of the year 1996 and the present admitted signatures are of the year 2008 and no contemporaneous signatures of the plaintiffs are made available for comparison and hence no purpose would be served and he further submitted that there is every possibility of disguising the signature of plaint, vakalat, chief and cross-examinations, so as to look dissimilar with that of the signature on Ex.A-2. Therefore, in these circumstances, the relief sought for by the plaintiff cannot be granted and the court below rightly dismissed the I.A. and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied on the judgments reported in BHUPATHIRAJU RAVI KUMAR v. PALURI SURYA PRAKASA RAO[3], NIMMAGADDA PADMANABHA RAO v. SMT. KOSARAJU SATYAVATHI[4] and RDF POWER PROJECTS LTD., HYDERABAD v. M.MURALIKRISHNA [5] . 5. In view of the above rival contentions, the point that arises for my consideration is whether the impugned order calls for any interference of this court? 6. The plaintiff filed the suit for cancellation of G.P.A. and the sale deed. Her case is that she had never executed G.P.A. in favor of the 2nd defendant and the signature of the said document is a rank forgery. Therefore, she filed the present interlocutory application seeking for sending the disputed signature on Ex.A-2 for comparison with that of her admitted signatures on vakalat, plaint, chief and cross- examinations, to an expert for opinion. On the ground that contemporaneous signatures were not available, the court below dismissed the I.A. 7. The suit is filed for cancellation of the G.P.A. and sale deeds on the ground that signature on Ex.A-2 G.P.A. is forged. The plaintiff has categorically denied the signature. Therefore, when the plaintiff is denying her signature on G.P.A., for better assistance to the court and to arrive at a just conclusion, it would be expedient to send the disputed signature for comparison and opinion with that of the admitted signatures. Ultimately, based on the evidence, it is for the court to come to a conclusion based on the evidence to be made available by the parties and the opinion of the expert is not binding on the court and will only enable the court in exercising power of comparison under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act. Moreover, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents/defendants. If the plaintiff fails to seek the court for sending the disputed signature to an expert for opinion, eventually, the appellate court may comment upon the issue, since the suit itself is filed for cancellation of the G.P.A. and the consequential sale seed. It is well settled that no straitjacket formula can be applied to all the cases, and depending upon the facts and circumstances, the court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction, has to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law in sending the disputes signatures to an expert for opinion. 8. A learned single Judge of this court in SUTHRAYA PRASAD RAO v. BOGATHI JAYA RAMI REDDY (2 supra), considering the similar contention that contemporaneous signatures are not available, held as under: “8. However, in the instant case the defendant while contesting the suit claim relied upon a calculation memo of the year 1996 which contained the signatures of the plaintiff. It is true that the signatures of the plaintiff on the said document were of the year 1996 and contemporaneous signatures of the plaintiff of the year 1996 are not available for comparison. However, that cannot be a justifiable ground to reject the request of the defendant to send the document in question for comparison with the admitted signatures of the plaintiff.” 9. In another a learned single Judge of this court in P.VENKATRAMANA v. M.VENKATARAMANA[6], while setting aside the order of the trial court in dismissing the application seeking for sending the disputed signature to an expert for opinion, 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.” 10. In another judgment, relied on by the counsel for the petitioner in VELAGA SIVARAMA KRISHNA v. VELAGA VEERABHADRA RAO, (1 supra), learned single Judge of this court, considering the judgment relied on by the counsel for the respondents (5 supra) 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.” 11. In view of the above judgments of this court, it is clear that opportunity of seeking an expert’s opinion shall not be denied, who is disputing his/her signature on suit documents and this will also not cause any prejudice to the opposite party. 12. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, the judgment relied on by the counsel for the respondents cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case and in the judgment of the learned single Judge cited one supra, the learned Judge considering the law laid down by the Apex Court and judgments of different High Courts and this court, has categorically held that opportunity of seeking an expert’s opinion shall not be denied, when the party is disputing his signature. 13. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order is set aside and I.A.No.397/2010 in O.S.No.342/2008 is allowed. 14. The revision is accordingly allowed. No costs. AVS ------------------------------- 28 --12--2011 [1] AIR 2009 AP 47 [2] 2009(3) ALD 551 [3] 2009(3) ALT 294 [4] 2006(5) ALT 586 [5] 2004(5) ALD 700 [6] 2009(5) ALT 113