HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.979 of 2008 ORDER: The order under revision is the order passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati in I.A. No.1128 of 2007 in O.S. No.236 of 2004 dated 29.01.2008. The petitioners herein are the petitioners in I.A. No.1128 of 2007, and the defendants in O.S. No.236 of 2004. The said Suit was filed for recovery of money based on a promissory note said to have been executed by late Sri G. Suryanandha Reddy, the husband of the 1st petitioner. The petitioners herein filed I.A. No.1128 of 2007, under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, to refer the Suit pronote, along with other disputed documents ie.., the pronote filed in O.S. No.116 of 2004, to a hand writing expert for comparison and opinion regarding the signature thereon. They contended that the signature of Sri G. Suryanandha Reddy, in the pronote filed in O.S. No.116 of 2004, was admitted to be his; they had only disputed the other recitals therein on the plea that the pronote in O.S. No.116 of 2004 was materially altered; and the pronote in O.S. No.116 of 2004 could be made the basis for comparison with the pronote filed in O.S. No.236 of 2004. The Court below observed that the petitioner did not produce any admitted documents except the certified copy of the pronote in O.S. No.116 of 2004; she wanted comparison of the two pronotes by a handwriting expert; the opinion of the expert was not conclusive proof and could not be made the basis for recording a finding; the petitioner had not adduced any evidence in the suit; it was for the respondent-plaintiff to prove execution of the pronote by the petitioner’s deceased husband; in case he failed to prove the said plea the Suit would be dismissed; and the Court could not depend on the opinion of an expert to come to the conclusion whether the suit pronote was executed by Sri G. Suryanandha Reddy or whether the pronote was forged. Sri V. Jagapathi, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that, as the signature of the petitioner’s husband in the pronote filed in O.S. No.116 of 2004 is admitted and the signature in the pronote filed in O.S. No.236 of 2004 is disputed, it is but appropriate that the pronote filed in both the Suits be sent for examination of a hand writing expert. Learned Counsel would rely on State v. Pali Ram[1] in support of his contention that the Court should not take upon itself the task of comparing signatures, and in determining whether the signature was forged or was genuine. Learned Counsel would contend that when the very basis of the suit was the pronote, the genuineness of which is disputed, the Court below should necessarily send both the pronotes for comparison by a handwriting expert. Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act relates to opinion of experts and, thereunder, when the Court has to form the opinion upon a point as to the identity of the hand writing, the opinion upon that point of persons specially skilled on the question as to the identity of handwriting are relevant facts, and such persons are called experts. Section 73 relates to comparison of signatures with others admitted or proved and, thereunder, in order to ascertain whether the signature is that of the person, by whom it purports to have been written or made, any signature admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written or made by that person may be compared with the one which is to be proved, although that signature has not been produced or proved for any other purpose. Section 73 also enables the Court to direct any person present in Court to write any words for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare the words alleged to have been written by such person. In Pali Ram1, the Supreme Court examined the powers of the Court, under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, to direct an accused to give his specimen writing and, in this context, held that, while there was no legal bar for the Judge using his own eyes to compare the disputed writing with the admitted writing even without the aid of the evidence of a hand writing expert, the Judge should, as a matter of prudence and caution, hesitate to base his finding with regard to the identity of a hand writing which forms the sheet-anchor of the prosecution’s case against a person accused of an offence, solely on comparison made by himself; it was not advisable that a Judge should take upon himself the task of comparing the admitted writing with the disputed one to find out whether the two agree with each other; and the prudent course is to obtain the opinion and assistance of an expert. As held by this Court in Kaveti Sarada v. Vemineni Hymavathi[2], it is not necessary that, in every case, the Court should refer a disputed document for verification by a hand writing expert, and these are all matters for the Court, in its discretion, to determine. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Pali Ram1 has no application to the present case in as much as it is not even the petitioner’s case, nor can it be, that the person whose signature is found on the document has been asked to write words in the presence of the Court. Sri G. Suryanandha Reddy, who is alleged to have signed the pronote, passed away in the year 2003 and, as such, the question of his being asked to write words in the presence of the Court would not arise. All that the Court below has held is that the burden is on the plaintiff to establish/prove execution of the pronote by the petitioner’s deceased husband. Refusal by the Court below to exercise its discretion to refer the documents for the opinion of a hand writing expert, on the ground that the petitioner had not even adduced evidence at that stage and the burden was on the plaintiff to establish that the petitioner- defendant’s husband had affixed his signature on the pronote in question, does not suffer from any patent illegality necessitating interference in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Needless to state that this order shall not preclude the petitioners herein from adducing evidence in support of their plea that the signature on the pronote in question is not that of Sri G. Suryanandha Reddy, the petitioner’s deceased husband. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Date: 01.07.2010 MRKR [1] AIR 1979 SC 14(1) [2] 2006(4) ALD 460