NARAYANA KEKUNNAYA Vs. VISHNU DERINJATHAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit, out of which this Civil Revision Petition has arisen, is for money due under a Yadasthu (hand-note) by which the defendant is said to have acknowledged a loan of Rs. 19,000/- odd from the plaintiff. The yadasthu is said to be written by the defendant himself; but he denied the same. On the plaintiffs application it was sent to a calligraphic expert at Delhi for his opinion; and his report came to court on January 24, 1961. On February 19, 1961, the defendant applied for the Yadasthu being sent to another expert at Madras for his opinion. This was objected to by the plaintiff on the ground that once an experts opinion is come in the case, another should not be called unless and until the court has found the first opinion unacceptable. The objection was overruled by the Trial Court; and the plaintiff has come up in revision against that order.

(2.) The contention is that an expert in handwriting or finger-prints should be treated the same way as a commissioner deputed to make a local inspection; and as a second report from a new commissioner would not be called unless and until the report of the first commissioner is rejected as unreliable, the same principle should be applied to opinions called from experts as well. I am not persuaded by this analogy.

(3.) Experts are not to be treated as commissioners deputed by court. They are only witnesses called in aid by the parties. Witnesses ordinarily are to testify to facts in their direct knowledge, leaving it to the Judge to form opinions, inferences or conclusions on the basis of such facts. Witnesses are ordinarily not to say what they thought or believed to be; and therefore their opinions are irrelevant in a judicial enquiry; but in certain special matters requiring special skill in the subject concerned, opinions of persons having special study, training or experience are accepted as evidence. A person instructed by experience is called an expert.