THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5161 of 2009 05.12.2009 Between: Gandi Jogulu, S/o.China Appa Rao … Petitioner and Mulagapalli Srinivasu, S/o.Veerraju … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5161 of 2009 ORDER: Petitioner is defendant in O.S.No.69 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tanuku. The suit is filed by sole plaintiff, respondent herein, for recovery of a sum of Rs.65,295.15 ps based on promissory note dated 31.8.2005 allegedly executed by defendant for Rs.50,000/-. Defendant is opposing the suit on the ground that suit promissory note is forged. He filed I.A.No.607 of 2009 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, praying the Court below to send suit promissory note to handwriting expert for comparison of the signature. The same having been dismissed on 18.9.2009, present revision petition is filed. This Court ordered notice before admission on 06.11.2009 and permitted learned Counsel for petitioner/defendant herein to take out personal notice. After taking out such notice, learned Counsel has filed memo of proof of service vide USR No.1664 of 2009 enclosing acknowledgement, which shows that the notice is duly served. In spite of the same, today when the matter is called, respondent/plaintiff is absent and there is no representation. Therefore, the matter is proceeded ex parte. The Court below rejected the application of defendant for sending the document to an expert for comparison of signatures on the ground that no purpose would be served because time gap between admitted signature and disputed signature is more and that there is likelihood of change in the signatures to make them dissimilar to the disputed signatures. The attention of this Court is invited to Velaga Sivarama Krishna v Velaga Veerabhadra Rao[1]. In the said judgment, this Court in a similar situation, after referring to various precedents on the point, laid down as under. Whenever a party disputes the signature on 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 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 report 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 hat he did not avail the opportunity of filing 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. In P.Venkatramana v M.Venkataramana[2], similar view was reiterated, which is as follows. 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. As seen from the record, the promissory note is dated 31.8.2005 and the defendant filed written statement on 03.7.2008. Therefore, lapse of time is hardly three years. On the ground that there is likelihood of the signatures of defendant in 2005 changing in 2008, an application to send questioned document to an expert cannot be rejected in a routine manner. The Court may examine all the facts and circumstances and in appropriate case, can even direct the questioned document to be sent to the expert opinion producing contemporaneous signatures. In that view of the matter, any doubts of using different signatures at different occasions can be dispelled. Therefore, this Court is not able to uphold the view of the Court below. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed and the I.A.No.607 of 2009 is also allowed, directing the Court below to send suit promissory note in O.S.No.69 of 2008 to Handwriting Expert on condition of petitioner/defendant producing his contemporaneous signatures at or about execution of alleged promissory note. It is needless to mention that if petitioner fails to produce his contemporaneous signatures at or about the execution of suit promissory note, the Court below shall proceed with the suit. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) December 05, 2009 NOTE: Dispatch order copy in One week. (By order) YS [1] 2009(1) ALT 379 [2] 2009(5) ALT 113