M SATYANARAYANA Vs. P INDIRA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is the Defendant in the suit O.S No. 67 of 1998 filed by the Respondent - Plaintiff on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge (FastTrack Court), Anakapalle for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,34,993.80 ps based on a promissory note Ex.A-1 dated 03-12-1995. The Petitioner filed written statement taking a plea that the suit pronote is a rank forgery and the signature contained on Ex.A-1 is not of him. Earlier, he filed an application in I.A No. 183 of 1999 for sending Ex. Ex.A-1 to Hand Writing Expert to compare the signature on Ex.A-1 with that of his signatures taken in the open Court on 31-10-2001. It appears, the Court below allowed the said application and the pronote was sent to the Hand Writing Expert for comparison of the signature onEx.A-1 pronote with the specimen signatures taken in the open Court on 31-10-2001. It is stated that the expert submitted a report opining that the signatures taken in the open Court are not tallying with the signature on Ex.A-1pronote. Therefore, the Petitioner filed I.A No. 133 of 2005 under Order XVI Rules 1 to 5 Code of Code of Civil Procedure to summon the expert to give evidence on his opinion and the same was opposed by the Respondent stating that the signature of the Petitioner on Ex.A-1 dated 03-12-1995 with the specimen signatures obtained in the open Court on 31-10-2001 nearly after six years, cannot be compared as they are not contemporaneous signatures and there is every possibility of the Petitioner to disguise specimen signatures taken in the open Court. Hence, the report has no evidentiary value and as such, there is no need to summon the expert to give evidence. The Court below by the impugned order dated 24-03-2008 while rejecting the contention of the Petitioner for summoning expert observed that the report of an expert or opinion of an expert is part of the record and that can be relied upon and taken into consideration basing on other circumstance sand the material on record and accordingly dismissed the application. Hence, the revision.

(2.) Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

(3.) There may not be any justification on the part of the Court below in rejecting the application of the Petitioner for summoning the expert for giving evidence, but the question that arises for consideration is as to whether the Petitioner -Defendant can be permitted to get the opinion of the expert by comparing the signature on Ex.A-1 pronote dated 03-12-1995 with that of the signatures taken in the open Court on 31-10-2001?