IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3429 of 2011 BETWEEN Devendra Trading Company, Maharashtra and 10 others. ... PETITIONERS AND Ch. Venkat Rao. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioners: SMT. W.V.S. RAJESWARI Counsel for the Respondent: MR. V.RAVINDER RAO The Court made the following: ORDER: The defendants in O.S.No.19 of 2002 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nirmal, filed I.A.No.225 of 2009 under Section 45 of the Evidence Act for sending Ex.A1 dated 10.03.1999 containing the signature of defendant No.10 to the handwriting expert for comparison and opinion. According to the defendants, the said signature is not genuine and a forged one whereas according to the plaintiff, defendant No.10 representing the firm has signed the said document. It is evident from the impugned order that the trial of the suit is now over and the suit is coming up for arguments. At that stage, the present application was filed by the defendants and the Court below was of the opinion that conclusion with regard to the signature of defendant No.10 can be drawn by comparison of signatures of defendant No.10 on the written statement and the vakalat with that of Ex.A1 under Section 73 of the Evidence Act. The trial Court also observed that if the Court feels necessary to send the disputed document for comparison, the Court can always exercise the power under Section 45 of the Evidence Act and dismissed the application under the impugned order dated 12.08.2011. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submits that it is imperative that the said document is examined by an expert in view of the fact that the crucial issue in the suit depends upon the proof of execution of the said document. Learned counsel also contended that no harm or prejudice would be caused to the respondent/plaintiff by obtaining the opinion of an expert. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, points out that the application is filed very belatedly and that under Section 73 of the Evidence Act, the Court is empowered to compare the signatures on the disputed document with that of admitted documents. He placed strong reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in LALIT POPLI v. CANARA BANK[1] and particularly para 13 thereof extracted hereunder: “13. It is to be noted that under Sections 45 and 47 of the Evidence Act, the Court has to take a view on the opinion of others, whereas under Section 73 of the said Act, the court by its own comparison of writings can form its opinion. Evidence of the identity of handwriting is dealt with in three sections of the Evidence Act. They are Sections 45, 47 and 73. Both under Sections 45 and 47 the evidence is an opinion. In the former case, it is by a scientific comparison and in the latter on the basis of familiarity resulting from frequent observations and experiences. In both the cases, the court is required to satisfy itself by such means as are open to conclude that the opinion may be acted upon. Irrespective of an opinion of the handwriting expert, the court can compare the admitted writing with the disputed writing and come to its own independent conclusion. Such exercise of comparison is permissible under Section 73 of the Evidence Act. Ordinarily, Sections 45 and 73 are complementary to each other. Evidence of the handwriting expert need not be invariably corroborated. It is for the court to decide whether to accept such an uncorroborated evidence or not. It is clear that even when an expert’s evidence is not there, the court has power to compare the writings and decide the matter. (See Murari Lal v. State of M.P. (1980) 2 SCC 704).” 4. I have considered the rival contentions and in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in LALIT POPLI’s case (1 supra), it is evident that comparison of disputed signature by an expert is a matter for the satisfaction of the Court below. In the present case also the Court below has recorded that the parties had led elaborative evidence and under Section 73 of the Evidence Act, the Court can itself consider the said aspect and if the Court feels necessary, the document can always be sent for opinion of an expert. The said option for sending the document for expert opinion is, therefore, not foreclosed even in the impugned order. In that view of the matter, no interference with the impugned order is called for. The Court below shall, therefore, proceed to consider the suit on the basis of the existing evidence as well as comparison of Ex.A1 with the admitted documents of defendant No.10 under Section 73 of the Evidence Act and in the event, the Court below feels necessary to have an opinion of expert with regard to Ex.A1, the Court below is at liberty to exercise that option at the appropriate time. With the aforesaid observations, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J September 9, 2011 DSK [1] (2003) 3 SCC 583