Bande Siva Shankara Srinivasa Prasad v. Ravi Surya Prakash Babu and Othersr

Counsel for the ResPondent :SRI. KOWTURU PAVAN KUMAR : None The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE DT. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI - CML REVISION PETITION No.340 of 2022 - ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner - defendant aggrieved by the order dated,24.01.2022 passed in I.A.No.190 of 2018 in O.S.No.325 of 2012 by the leamed II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal.

2. Heard Sri K.Ujwal Babu, counsel representing Sri Kowturu Pavan Kumar, leamed counsel for the petitioner on record.

3. No representation for the respondent, though notice was served on the respondent through the counsel representing him before the trial court.

4. As seen from the record, the respondent - plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,47,600/- stating that the defendant and her husband approached the ptaintiff seeking loan of Rs.2,00,000/- to meet the construction expenses of their house and the plaintiff advanced the said sum to the defendant on 08.12.2010. The defendant executed a promissory note on the same day acknowledging the receipt of the amount and agreed to repay the same with interest @ 1.5 % per month, but failed to repay the borrowed amount with accrued interest. As such, after issuing legal notice, filed the suit. 2 Dr.GR& J crp-40]022

5. The defendant hled written statement denying borrowal of the amount or executing the suit promissory note. She contended that she worked as headmistress in various schools in Warangal District prior to her retirement. During her tenure as headmistress, she used to issue various certificates like salary certificates to her subordinates including teachers, who worked under her, transfer certificates, study certificates to the students after subscribing her signatures on them. The plaintiff somehow came into the possession of one of such certificates, scanned the signature of the defendant and got the same imprinted on the revenue stamps affixed on the suit promissory note, filled up the blanks in it, as if she borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- from him and committed rank forgery in bringing the promissory note into exi,stence.

6. During the course of trial, the defendant filed l.A.No.l90 of 2018 under order XLV read with Section 73 0f the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to obtain her sample signatures in open Court and to refer the same along with promissory note dated 08. 12.2010 to the handwriting expert for comparison of her signatures with that of the signature attributed to her on the promissory note'

7. The respondent - plaintiff filed counter contending that the defendant need to file contemporary signatures of the relevant period as on the date of execution of promissory note to compare her signatures with that of the / /i' 3 Dr.GR&J crp 340]O22 signatures in the promissory note. But obtaining sample signatures before the Court would not be of any use and prayed to dismiss the petition.

8. The trial cout i.e. the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, on considering the contentions of both the learned counsel and on perusing the record, observed that: "It was not the case ofthe petitioner that the signature appearing on the suit promissory nole dated 08.12.2010 was not that of her: It is her version that thc respondcnt plaintiff scanned her signahrre and got the same imprinted on the rcvenue stamps affixed on the suit promissory note. So, even if the signatures ofthe petitioner herein were obtained in the open Court and were sent to the handwriting expert, for comparison, no purpose would be served to the petitioner. Further, the signature on the suit promissory note was of the year 2010, whereas the petitioner was as.king the Court to obtain her admitted signatures in the open Court and send the same to the handwriting expert for comparison, the same wa-s not permissible under [aw" and dismissed the petition

9. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the defendant preferred this revision.

10. The contention of the leamed counsel for the revision petitioner was that the trial Judge ought to have examined the scope of tampering by way of scanning the signature and ought to have issued necessary directions to the expert to elicit real truth for proper adjudication and relied upon the judgment of erstwhile common High Court for the state of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in 4 Dr.GRR, J crp-40-022 Bande Siva Shankara Srinivasa Prasad v. Ravi Surya Prakash Babu and Othersr .

11. A 3-Judge Bench of the erstwhile common High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in a matter under reference held that the Court was not barred from sending disputed signature for comparison to an expert due to the long time gap between the admitted signature and the disputed signature.

12. The 3-Judge Bench after framing several issues like: a) Are contemporaneous handwritings / signatures always or normallv necessary for comparison and report? b) What is the meaning of contemporaneous; and what is the measure of contemporaniety? c) Why are examiners of questioned documents frequently returning documents sent to them for opinion, to the referring Court for contemporaneous signatures / handwritings? Are current handwriting science / expert protocols in the area incapable of comparing handwriting / signatures without contemporaneous models for comparison; whether in all circumstances or only in specific situations; and if in specific situations, what are the range of circumstances where contemporaneous handwritings / signatures required for rendering an opinion? called for the report of the expert in the field i.e. the Director of Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad, asking him to call upon 'AIR 2ol6 AP I 18 @F"*-;4' i': 5 Dr.GRR, J crp]40-2O22 the Govemment Examiner of Questioned Documents and after receiving the report from them with all the relevant material, observed that: "24. The gist ofthe experts' opinion, emerging from the above Report, is to the effect that i1 is not always necessary to have contemporaneous handwritings/signatures for comparison. However, as a general rule, it would be desirable to undertake comparison of admitted handwritings/signatures with disputed handwritingsisignatures which fall within the range of 2 or 3 years from each other. Therefore, there can be no hard and fast norm as to when comparison can or carnot be undertaken owing to the time lag between the two sets of handwritings/signatures. Various other factors would have to be taken into consideration, as opined by the experts, quoted hereinbefore. Each case would tum upon its own facts and circumstances relating to the time lag, the change in the handwriting/signature, the capability of correlating the two sets and ultimately, the opinion of the expert himself as to whether the two sets can be compared. I1 is therefore not open to the C'ourt to refuse to entertain an appl ication seeking comparison ol disputed handwritings/signatures with admitted handwritings/ signatures on the ground of a long lapse of time between the two sets of handwritings/signatures."

13. In the present case, the contention of the petitioner - defendant was that the signature appearing on the suit promissory note was not that of her and that the respondent - ptaintiff scanned her signature and got the same imprinted on the revenue stamps affrxed on the suit promissory note. The exped would be in a position to say whether the suit promissory note was containing the original signature of the petitioner defendant or whether it was a scanned signature, which was imprinted on the revenue stamps affixed on the suit promissory note. If he was not in a position to say so, he would be informing the Court by giving 6 Dr.GBR, J tp 340 2022 his reasons. If the signatures obtained from the petitioner - defendant in the open Court could not be compared with that of the signature on the suit promissory note due to the long time gap, it was for the expert to say so. But the trial court itself declining to obtain the signatures of the petitioner - defendant or to refer the promissory note to the expert, would amount to nipping the defence of the petitioner - defendant at the budding stage only.

14. As such, this Court is of the opinion that the trial court ought to have allowed the petition instead of deciding itself that the same were incomparable or that there was a long time gap. The observation of the trial court that the petitioner asking the Court to obtain her admitted signatures in the open Court and sending the same to the handwriting expert for comparison was not permissible under law, is erroneous, since the law permits referring the matter to an expert under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, when the defendant is disputing her signature on the suit promissory note.

15. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 24.01.2022 passed in I.A.No.l90 of 2018 in O.S.No.325 of 2012 by the leamed II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, directing the trial coud to obtain the signature of the petitioner - defendant in the open Court and to send the same to the expert for comparison with the disputed signature on the suit promissory note dated 08.12.2010. No order as to costs. ''t 7 Dr.GRR, J crp 340 2O22 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this petition, if any, shall stand closed Sd/. L. LAKSHMI BABU DEPUW REGISTRAR /t: ,1." I I //TRUE COPY// \ i \ I l V sECTtoN oFFlcER To, 1 . The ll Additional Senior Civil JKudge, Warangal District at Warangal . One CC to SRl. KOWTURU PAVAN KUMAR Advocate tOpUCl 3. Two CD Copies 2 TL/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:26/0312025 ORDER CRP.No.340 ot 2022 /4. ^is J )I 12 rlJE Ei z a! * Dr S i/.r-.. C eLO + ALLOWING THE C.R.P. t-