In a civil revision petition, this court dismissed the challenge to the trial court's order rejecting an application to examine carbon copies of bills for handwriting comparison, relying on the principle that expert opinion on xerox copies is inadmissible.
Civil Revision Petition No.2662 of 2010 dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2662 of 2010 Dated:12.07.2010
Between:
Ganapabattula Surya Prakasarao.
….Petitioner
And
Sri Durga Srinivasa Agencies.
…Respondent
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2662 of 2010
ORDER:
The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.235 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Narsapur. The respondent herein filed the suit for recovery of Rs.1,56,637/- towards the cost of fertilizers allegedly supplied by the respondent. During the trial the Proprietor of respondent gave evidence as P.W.1. He marked Exs.A1 to A6, bills and account books in the Court to show that the petitioner herein counter signed the bills and entries in the account books as and when fertilizers were supplied. The petitioner disputes the same. He, therefore, filed I.A.No.382 of 2010 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, with a request to send all the documents filed and exhibited by the respondent to a handwriting expert. The application was dismissed on 12.04.2010, aggrieved by which, the present writ petition is filed.
Counsel for the petitioner (defendant) submits that the impugned order suffers from error apparent on the face of the record and the trial Court erred in coming to the conclusion that signatures can be compared by the Court. He also submits that when the signatures are disputed, even the carbon copies can also be sent for examination of handwriting expert.
After perusing the impugned order this Court is not able to countenance the submission of the learned Counsel. The said order does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record. This Court in Bheri Nageswara Rao v Mavuri Veerabhadra Rao[1] has held that the Xerox copies of the documents cannot be the basis for examining the genuineness of the handwriting and that experts can render opinion only when original documents containing disputed signatures are forwarded. Admittedly, Exs.A1 to A6, which the petitioner wants to send for handwriting expert, are carbon copies of the bills and account books, and therefore, the learned trial Judge came to correct conclusion.
The Civil Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed.
__________________ (V.V.S.RAO, J)
12.07.2010 vs
[1] 2006 (4) ALT 694
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the application to examine carbon copies of bills for handwriting comparison under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. (98 characters)
Whether an error exists apparent on the face of the record regarding the admissibility of expert opinion on Xerox copies of documents. (119 characters)
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bheri Nageswara Rao v Mavuri Veerabhadra RaoReferred¶12
2006 (4) ALT 694
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ganapabattula Surya Prakasarao
Sri Durga Srinivasa Agencies
V.V.S.RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
