PANCHULAL Vs. GANESHILAL MAHESHWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's revision application under the Rajasthan Small Cause court Ordinance. The case of the plaintiff is that the defen-dant borrowed Rs. 470/- from him on 13-10-64 and executed a pronote Ex. 1. As he did not make payment despite repeated demands, the present suit was instituted,

(2.) IN support of his case the plaintiff himself came into the witness box and proved the promissory note Ex. I. The defendant denied having executed it and produced a hand-writing expert who corroborated him. The de-fendant did not admit his signatures on the vakalatnama which he had himself filed in Court. The learned trial Judge compared the signatures of the defendant on the promissory note with those on his written statement and the Vakalatnama. and disagreed with the evidence of the expert that the formation of the letters was dissimilar. He came to the conclusion that the formation of the letters was similar, although, the defendant had deliberately disguised his hand-writing by putting the 'matra' of 'big' on the Vakalatnama. written statement and the specimen signatures, whereas, in his signatures on the promissory note he had put the 'matra' of 'small'. He accordingly decreed the suit.

(3.) ON behalf of the defendant, the decision of a learned single Judge of the allahabad High Court in Bhagwan Din v. Gouri Shankar AIR 1957 All 119, has been referred to. In that decision, it has been held that if the de-fendant chooses to deny his signatures on a document then the bare statement of the plaintiff on the point cannot be believed and that the plaintiff must, in such a case, examine a hand writing expert. With all respect to the learned Judge, I am unable to agree with the view taken by him. Section 73 of the Evidence Act permits the Court to com- pare the signature of a person with his admitted signatures. It runs as follows :-