M SURYAPRAKASH v. T SRINIVASA RAJU

2

NJS, J

Crp_31_ 2021 stand is taken in the written statement that the signatures are forged, the Trial Court ought to have referred the disputed documents for expert's opinion. He submits that by referring the suit documents for comparison with the signatures of the petitioner/defendant obtained in the open Court, no prejudice would be caused and further the report of the expert would aid the Court to adjudicate the suit claim more effectively and without considering the said aspect in a proper perspective the learned Trial Judge went wrong in dismissing the application seeking expert's opinion. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel would urge that the Order under Revision is liable to be set aside.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent supported the Order and submits that there are no merits warranting interference by this Court.

6. This Court has considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel. The issue with regard to sending of documents for comparison of signatures with those on the Vakalat, Written Statement and the admitted signatures obtained in the open Court fell for consideration in P.Padmanabhaiah v. G.Srinivasa Rao¹, wherein the learned Judge after considering the matter at length inter alia held as follows:-

"In the well considered view of this Court, the defendants signatures on the Vakalat and the Written Statement cannot be considered as signatures of comparable and assured standard as according to the plaintiff even by the date of the filing of the vakalat the defendant is clear in his mind about his stand in regard to the denial of his signatures on the suit promissory note and the endorsement thereon and as the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant might have designedly disguised his signatures on the Vakalat and the Written Statement cannot be ruled out prima facie. The view point being projected by the plaintiff that if the defendant is called upon to furnish his signatures in open Court, he might designedly disguise his signatures while making his signatures on papers in open

3

NJS, J

Crp_31_ 2021 court is also having considerable force and merit. Unless the defendant makes available to the Court below any documents, with his signatures, of authentic and reliable nature more or less of a contemporaneous period, and unless such documents are in turn made available to the expert along with the suit promissory note, the expert will not be in a position to furnish an assured opinion, in the well considered view of this Court. ……...There is no point in sending to an expert the documents of doubtful nature and character and add one more piece of unreliable evidence and burden the record by wasting the time and money of the parties. When there are no signatures of comparable and assured standard on the material record before the trial Court, it is unsafe to obtain the signatures of the defendant in open Court and send the said signatures and also his vakalat and written statement to an expert for obtaining his opinion after comparison of the signatures thereon with the disputed signatures on the suit promissory note, as any such opinion obtained from a handwriting expert on such material is not going to be of any help to the trial Court in effectively adjudicating the lis more particularly in the light of the admitted legal position that expert's opinion evidence as to handwriting or signatures can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence."

7. The above decision of the Judge, in the considered opinion of this Court, applies in all fours to the present case. In such view of the matter, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.

__________________

NINALA JAYASURYA, J

Date: 08.04.2022

IS

4

NJS, J

Crp_31_ 2021

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Civil Revision Petition No.31 of 2021

Date: 08.04.2022

IS