HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5669 OF 2010 . DATED 13TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 BETWEEN Dommeti Rama Krishna …Petitioner And Guttula vijaya Lakshmi and anr ….Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5669 OF 2010. ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed aggrieved by the order dated 14.09.2010 whereby the learned 1st Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur allowed I.A.No. 420 of 2010 in O.S.No. 50 of 2010 filed by the first respondent/first defendant under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send the alleged suit document dated 13.11.2009 to the Government Handwriting Expert at Hyderaba to compare the disputed signatures on the suit document with that of admitted signatures which were taken in the open Court. The first respondent is the first defendant in the suit in O.S.No. 420 of 2010 which was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for specific performance of the contract. Before filing the written statement, the first respondent/first defendant took a plea of forgery and filed the impugned interlocutory application seeking to send the alleged suit document for opinion of the handwriting expert. The Court below considering the differences in between the disputed signatures on the suit agreement and admitted signatures that were taken in the open Court thought it necessary to have an opinion of the handwriting expert and thereby allowed the application. The learned Counsel for the petitioner opposing the decision of the Court below submitted that the first respondent/first defendant having herself duly executed the suit agreement of sale on 13.11.2009 in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff after receipt of the earnest price, gave a Xerox copy of her registered sale deed dated 8.9.2000 of the suit schedule property to him. He further submitted that the first respondent/first defendant did not file any admitted document to compare her signatures with that of the suit document. He argued that the registered sale deed dated 9.12.2009 which was chosen for comparison of signatures thereon with that of signatures taken in the open Court cannot be allowed in as much as the said deed was collusively executed in the name of the second defendant and the same was subsequently brought into existence to overcome the situation. He asserted that the first respondent/first defendant intentionally changed her version of signatures to create inconsistency deliberately omitting to write ‘vralu’ at the end of her signature. He pointed out that the Court below without taking note of these lacunae mechanically allowed the impugned application, which warrants interference by this Court. Perused the case file. It is the case of the petitioner/plaintiff that a look at the Xerox copy of the registered sale deed dated 9.12.2009 said to have been executed by the first respondent/first defendant in favour of the second defendant as well as the suit agreement discloses that the first respondent/first defendant signed with ending word ‘vralu’ whereas in the vakalat she signed without the alleged ending word ‘vralu’ and there is every possibility of disguising her style of signature which are in the form of individual letters so as to make them dissimilar with that of the genuine signatures on the suit agreement dated 13.11.2009. Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads as follows: 45. Opinions of experts-When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law or of science or art, or as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, or in questions as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions are relevant facts. Such persons are called experts. Under the above Section, a document can be sent to the handwriting expert for the purpose of comparison of handwriting or signatures on the disputed document. Section 73 of the Act reads as follows: 73. Comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved.-In order to ascertain whether a signature, writing or seal is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written or made, any signature, writing, or seal 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, writing, or seal has not been produced or proved for any other purpose. The Court may direct any person present in Court to write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare the words or figures so written with any words or figures alleged to have been written by such person. This section applies also, with any necessary modifications, to finger impressions. While there is no doubt that the Court can compare the disputed handwritings with the admitted handwriting, however, such comparison by Court without the assistance of any expert has always been considered hazardous and risky. {See :State VBs. Pali Ram (1979 Crl.J 17)} Whenever a party disputes the signature on a particular document, two remedies are open to him, either to request the court to compare itself the signatures or to file an application seeking 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 would be caused to either party. When he is asserting that the signature is that of the said party, eventhough there is a gap between the disputed signatures and admitted signatures, science has been so 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 an opportunity is denied to the party and if the matter is carried to the Appellate Court, there is every likelihood of commenting that 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. The learned Counsel for the petitioner asserted that the first respondent/first defendant intentionally changed her version of signature to create inconsistency deliberately omitting to write ‘vralu’ at the end of signature and therefore there is every possibility of disguising her style of signature, which are in the form of individual letters and dissimilar with that of the original signature on the suit agreement. As enumerated supra Sections 45 and 47 of the Indian Evidence Act prescribe the method by which signature can be proved. As stated supra, mere variation in the appearance of the signatures or handwriting does not disprove the authenticity of the signature or handwriting, because a fine or a stub pen, haste or deliberation, good or bad health, sitting or standing position, drunken or sober state of a person may radically change the appearance or quality of writing. Dissimilarity between the admitted impression of a person and that on the disputed document due to difference in ink and angle of the impression can be held to be superfluous and not of positive impact. In the present case, the first respondent/first defendant took a specific plea that the suit agreement of sale was not signed and executed by her. As such, at the very threshold of filing the suit and before filing written statement, she made an application under Section 45 of the Act to send the document to the handwriting expert for comparison of the disputed signature with the admitted signatures. The lower Court, by assigning valid reasons allowed the application. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the view that it is essential to send the document to the expert for comparison at the request of the party in the interests of justice, which cannot cause any amount of prejudice to the petitioner/plaintiff and therefore, the order of the lower Court is liable to be sustained. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order under revision. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ------------------------------------ -- JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA Dated 13TH September, 2011. Msnro