Allowed

Yallamilli Jaya Priyanaka v. Rayudu Veera Venkata Satyanarayana

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Sept 2019CRP/2058/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Civil Revision Petition against a trial Court order dismissing a request for handwriting comparison. It set aside the impugned order and directed the petitioner to produce prior authenticated documents for expert analysis before the trial Court can refer the suit pronote to an expert.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; petitioner directed to produce prior authenticated documents for expert opinion; trial Court directed to refer documents to expert.

Yallamilli Jaya Priyanaka Vs Rayudu… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2058 OF 2019

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

1. The challenge in the Civil Revision Petition, at the instance of petitioner/defendant, is to the docket order, dated 11.07.2019, in I.A.No.637 of 2019 in O.S.No.190 of 2018, passed by learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari district (for short, ‘the trial Court’), dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner/defendant under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act to refer Ex.A-1 suit pronote to handwriting expert along with her admitted signatures for comparison and giving report.

¶4

2. Notice served on respondent, but there is no representation on his behalf. Hence, heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶5

3. I perused the impugned order. At the outset, the trial Court was right in dismissing the petition on the ground that the vakalath, written statement and affidavits filed by the defendant in the suit cannot be referred along with Ex.A-1 suit pronote for comparison of her signatures thereon with the signature on Ex.A-1 for the reason that the signatures on such documents were made by the defendant after filing of the suit and the defendant did not file any other documents containing her signatures at the relevant time of suit pronote or

¶6

UDPR,J CRP No.2058 of 2019

¶7

¶8

documents containing her signatures prior to the dispute had arisen between parties.

¶9

4. The above reason is impeccable for the reason that since the defendant took a plea in her written statement that the suit pronote is a rank forgery, the possibility of her signing differently on the written statement, vakalath, and other documents filed before the trial Court subsequent to the filing of suit cannot be ruled out. Therefore, the trial Court rightly held that such documents which were originated after filing the suit cannot be said to contain admitted signatures of the defendant for referring to expert for comparison with the disputed signature on Ex.A-1 pronote.

¶10

5. In similar circumstances, this Court in P.Padmanabhaiah v.

¶11

G.Srinivasa Rao¹ , held as follows:

¶12

“7 . The defendant who is seeking comparison, by an expert, of his signatures on vakalat and written statement on one hand with the disputed signatures, which are on Exhibits A1 and A2 on the other, has not produced into the Court below, along with his petition, any authentic documents like registered sale deeds or any other registered documents containing his signatures of a contemporaneous or any other period. The defendant has not even produced any other [unregistered] documents containing his signatures which are prior in point of time to Exhibits A1 and A2. It is not his case that there are no such documents. It is settled law that the science of identifying thumb impressions is an exact science and does not admit any mistake or doubt. Nevertheless, the

¶13

1 2017 (2) ALD 368

¶14

UDPR,J CRP No.2058 of 2019

¶15

¶16

opinion of an expert in regard to genuineness or otherwise of signatures and/or hand writings is purely opinion evidence and such opinion evidence in regard to signatures and/or handwriting will not be considered as an opinion based on exact science as in the case of thumb impressions. In addition, it is necessary to observe that expert's opinion evidence as to handwriting or signatures can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence. In the well considered view of this Court, the defendant’s 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 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. Further, it is not in dispute that the defendant in his crossexamination has denied his signatures on his vakalat filed in the suit and also could not affirm or say for sure as to whether his signature on the affidavit filed in lieu of examination in chief is his signature or not. 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

¶17

UDPR,J CRP No.2058 of 2019

¶18

¶19

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. ”

¶20

6. Admitting the above legal position, learned counsel for the petitioner would request that an opportunity may be given to the petitioner/defendant to produce the documents containing authenticated and admitted signatures of the defendant contemporaneous or prior to Ex.A-1 pronote. He would implore that unless an opportunity is given, the petitioner/defendant cannot vindicate her defence.

¶21

7. Considering the reasonability in the above submission, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting-aside the impugned order, dated 11.07.2019, in I.A.No.637 of 2019, and consequently the said petition is allowed directing the petitioner/defendant to produce the documents containing her authenticated and admitted signatures originated prior to Ex.A-1 pronote, in which case the trial Court shall

¶22

UDPR,J CRP No.2058 of 2019

¶23

¶24

refer such documents along with Ex.A-1 to the handwriting expert for

¶25

his opinion. No order as to costs.

¶26

8. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall

¶27

stand closed.

¶28