Learned counsel for the appellant is right in his contention. Unless and until the report of the handwriting expert is marked in evidence, it cannot be considered as a piece of evidence. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel, it is just an opinion, which needs to be proved as required by law by examining the author of the report. In this case, admittedly the expert was not examined nor was the report marked. Therefore, the same cannot be considered as a piece of evidence or as a part of the evidence in this suit. Hence, the lower Court was wrong in relying on the said report. Even if the said report is not a part of the record, the fact remains that the burden to prove the forgery of the signature etc., lies upon the defendant, who has denied his signature. The defendant has not introduced any evidence to show that the signature on the said document is a forgery. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence either oral or documentary, the plea that the signature of the defendant on the demand promissory note is a forgery is not proved.
