IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2009 / 4TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 20725 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29/06/2009 IN IA.310/07 IN OS.2/2004 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC), KASARAGOD .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAGHAVAN, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.KALYANI AMMA, RESIDING AT CHERUVATHUR VILLAGE, NR.RAILWAY STATION ROAD, HOSDURG TALUK, KANHANGAD P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- PADACHERRY LAKSHMANAN, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.KALYANI AMMA, RESIDING AT PAYANNUR VILLAGE, TALIPPARAMBU TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.20725 OF 2009 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking mainly the following reliefs: i. to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ calling for the records relating to Ext.P4 and quash the same as illegal. 2. Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.2 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Court (Adhoc-I), Kasaragod. Suit is for refund of the advance price paid on an agreement of sale, and the respondent is the plaintiff. Resisting the suit claim, petitioner/defendant filed a written statement in which he disputed the execution of the agreement of sale and also challenged its genuineness contending that his signature has been forged in that document. Respondent/plaintiff thereupon moved for forensic examination of the agreement of sale WPC.20725/09 2 bearing the alleged signature of the defendant with his admitted signature after being collected in the court. That application being allowed, in the presence of the Sheristadar as directed by the court, the defendant subscribed his signature thirty six times, and with his admitted signatures, the disputed document was sent over to the forensic expert. After comparing the signature of the defendant with the admitted signatures collected, as aforesaid, the forensic expert filed Ext.P3 report. The expert was not able to give a definite opinion with respect to the signature seen in the disputed document as to whether it was subscribed by the defendant. Respondent/plaintiff thereupon moved another application for sending over the document, after getting a fresh set of signatures from the defendant, summoning him to court and collecting his signatures, to another expert. An agreement executed by the defendant for taking a contract work from the Public Works Department was also summoned for being sent over to the expert for comparison of the signature of the defendant with those appearing in the agreement of sale. The application was allowed vide Ext.P4 order. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P4 order is challenged WPC.20725/09 3 by the defendant filing this writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the learned counsel on both sides. Having regard to the submissions made and perusing Ext.P4 order challenged in the writ petition with reference to Ext.P3 report of the forensic expert to whom the documents with the signatures admittedly collected from the defendant were sent over for examination, I find that the court below has not applied its mind before passing Ext.P4 order for sending over the document to another expert for examination after getting an agreement executed by the defendant before the Public Works Department. It is seen from Ext.P3 report of the expert that he was surprised in noticing that thirty six specimen signatures obtained from the defendant are disguised from one another. The thirty six specimen signatures were executed at the court in the presence of the counsel and the Sheristadar. 4. Some of the observations made by the expert in his WPC.20725/09 4 report have to be taken note of to consider whether a subsequent application at the instance of the plaintiff to forward the disputed document again to another expert is called for. The expert has observed thus: “A fundamental question that arises, to me, in this case is whether a person whose signature is in dispute and who has every right and opportunity to prove his innocence before an Honourable Court of Law, has the right to disguise his signature beyond all reasonableness. If the executant claims that these are his genuine signatures, it has to be held (on concrete scientific reasons) that he does execute a minimum of 36 fundamentally divergent signatures which by all probabilities of the law of nature is just impossible and improbable, unless disguised to the core.” It appears that the learned District Judge has not gone through Ext.P3 report before considering the merit of the subsequent application moved by the plaintiff to send over the agreement again to another expert with an agreement executed by the defendant with the Public Works Department. Opinion furnished under Ext.P3 report by expert has relevance and significance in appreciating the question WPC.20725/09 5 whether denial of execution of agreement of sale by the defendant is acceptable or not. There is no rule that expert's opinion on handwriting is acceptable only where similarity with disputed document with admitted writing or signature after comparison is opined giving reasons thereof. Equally important is his opinion, unless otherwise shown, that admitted signatures are made disguising one from the other, indicating that the executant is capable of subscribing signatures different from one another. Setting aside Ext.P4 order, I direct the learned District Judge to consider afresh I.A.No.310 of 2007 in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above. Writ petition is accordingly disposed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp