The petitioner is the defendant in the aforementioned suit filed by the respondent for recovery of money on the foot of Ex.A.1promissory note. While it is the pleaded case of the respondent that the petitioner has borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and executed the promissory note, the petitioner has pleaded that the respondent has obtained signatures on blank papers and used the same for creating Ex.A.1. During the pendency of trial, the petitioner has filed Exs.B.1 to B.8. Ex.B.1 is purported to be a chit receipt allegedly signed by the respondent and D.W.2-a partner of the respondent in the chit business. When the respondent denied his signature on Ex.B.1, the petitioner has filed I.A.No.91 of 2015 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short ‘the Act’) for sending Exs.B.1 to B.8 along with the admitted signatures of the respondent taken in the Court during the course of evidence, to the expert for comparison. The lower Court has dismissed this application by observing that under Section 73 of the Act, the Court itself has the power to compare the signatures and handwriting of the respondent/plaintiff with that of the signatures and handwriting found on Exs.B.1 to B.8.
