IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2010 / 14TH JYAISTHA 1932 AS.No. 532 of 2000() -------------------- OS.1153/1995 of PRL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT(S)/DEFENDANT: ------------------------------- VINAYAN, S/O KATHANA PARAMBIL RAJAN, ETTUMUNA DESOM, CORAKAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.D.ANIL KUMAR RESPONDENT(S)/PLAINTIFF: ----------------------------- BABU, MECHANIC, KATHANA PARAMBIL ACHUTHAN, ETTUMUNA DESOM, CORAKAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.N.P.SAMUEL THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = A.S. NO. 532 OF 2000 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 4th day of June, 2010. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, Thrissur in O.S.1153/95. It is the case of the plaintiff that he had entrusted the defendant to make certain gold ornaments and for the said purpose had given him Rs.25,000/-. The defendant did not make any ornaments. He did not return the amount as well therefore after negotiation there was an agreement entered into between the two whereby the defendant had undertaken to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- to the plaintiff. Since the amount has not been paid the suit is filed. 2. The defendant would contend that no amount has been received by the defendant from the plaintiff and the suit is a misconceived one. He has also denied the execution of Ext.A1 and therefore prayed for dismissal of the suit. A.S. 532 OF 2000 -2- 3. In the trial court PW1 and DW1 were examined and Exts.A1 to A3 and B1 and X1 were marked. A perusal of the judgment would reveal that the Court had relied upon the hand writing experts report for granting a decree in favour of the plaintiff. The Court has also relied upon the decision of this Court reported in 1989 (2) KLT 288 (Kannan v. Nanu). The learned judge of this Court held that, “Examination of the experts is not a condition precedent to admissibility of the report even though the Court or with its permission any of the parties may examine the experts. That does not mean that with or without the examination of the expert the Court is bound to accept the opinion as substantive evidence and act on it.” 4. The evidence of PW1 would reveal that he had spoken in line with this case. So far as the witnesses are concerned he does not examine any witnesses at all. The defendant had totally denied the execution of the document. The signature in the A.S. 532 OF 2000 -3- disputed document with four admitted signatures taken from the Court were sent for comparison. A prima facie comparison of the same would reveal that they are not the same. The handwriting expert also had opined that there are gross dissimilarities with respect to the major part of the handwriting. But he would submit that some of the main characteristic remain and therefore it can be said that disputed signature is made by the person. In the footnote of the report he had also stated that, “As the specimen signatures taken in the Court have been intentionally highly distorted and disguised, it is, therefore, necessary to examine other available admitted signatures in the Court file as appearing on the back of the Court summons, Vakalat Nama, the written statement etc.(made by the defendant). I shall further elaborate these points at the time of my evidence in the Court at Thrissur, when summoned after taking permission from the civil Court to examine some relevant papers from the Court file.” A.S. 532 OF 2000 -4- So the report of the expert as such cannot be said to be conclusive in this matter because he himself has got certain reservations. When such is the situation the Court should not have acted upon such a report to arrive at a decision regarding the correctness of the signature. I am equally conscious of the fact that examining an expert on a suit for Rs.25,000/- would be costly. But law requires acceptable evidence for granting a relief. The plaintiff has not given any reasons for non examination of the two witnesses found in the document out of which one is his brother and the other is a friend of him. If they are available certainly their evidence can be made use of for the purpose of corroborating the evidence of PW1 as well. Therefore I set aside the judgment and decree of the court below and remit the case to the trial court for fresh consideration. The parties be permitted to adduce additional evidence in support of their respective contentions including the examination of the expert for the satisfaction of the Court. The parties are directed to appear A.S. 532 OF 2000 -5- before the Court on 20.7.2010. The Court fee paid on the memorandum of appeal be refunded to the appellant's counsel. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/- A.S. 532 OF 2000 -6- M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = A.S. No. 532 OF 2000 = = = = = = = = = = = J U D G M E N T 4th June, 2010.