Handwriting On A Disputed Document Cannot Be Compared With Signatures On Vakalat & Written Statement: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Brief Facts of the case

The petitioner was the defendant in the suit. The respondent/plaintiff filed the said suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,71,600/- with future interest and costs.

The petitioner/defendant filed written statement, inter alia, contending that the suit promissory note is forged document and his signatures were forged.

The petitioner filed an application in the suit under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to send promissory note to the handwriting expert by receiving specimen writings in the four promissory notes and to receive his specimen signatures in the open Court along with the vakalatnama and written statement for comparison. The respondent/plaintiff filed counter and opposed the said application.

The Trial Court dismissed the said application for expert opinion with the reasoning that it should have been filed before the commencement of Trial Court and not after closure of the evidence on the plaintiff's side. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition had been preferred against the order passed in the application.

The counsel for the petitioner contended that the view taken by the Trial Court was not correct. The petitioner had no intention to drag the proceedings. Furthermore, application under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act can be made at any stage.

The counsel for respondent contended that though the defendant had taken a plea of forgery, he had not chosen to file any application seeking opinion of the expert with reference to suit promissory note at the earliest point of time.

Issue of law

Whether the order of the Trial Court warranted interference and the application for referring the documents for expert opinion as sought for deserved to be allowed, in the facts of the case?

Consideration of the Court

Justice Ninala Jayasurya observed that the view of the Trial Court was not tenable in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Full Bench Bande Siva Shankara Srinivasa Prasad @ Ravi Surya Prakash Babu (2016) where it was held that no time limit could be fixed for filing applications under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for sending disputed writings to the handwriting expert for comparison and same shall be left open to the discretion of the Court.

In Gulam Ghouse & Ors. v. Madarse Jeelania Shama Ul Uloom, (2007) where a crucial issue regarding the maintainability of suit was involved on the basis of documents allegedly forged and fabricated, the Lower Court ought to have exercised its discretion judiciously and came to a conclusion that the opinion of expert would help the court to give a quietus to the plea taken by the defendants.

However, in P. Padmanabhaiah v. G.Srinivasa Rao, 2016, the High Court refused to allow the application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send the vakalat and written statement containing his signatures along with promissory note for handwriting expert for comparison:

"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."

In light of the legal consideration that the Vakalat and the Written Statement are not assured standard documents to compare the signatures from, the Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition but noted that the reason assigned by the Trial Judge was not sustainable.

Case Title: Byalla Devadas Versus Sivapuram Rama Yogeswara Rao

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw ( AP) 53