"So far as the comparison of the signatures or the thumb impression is concerned, such course has to be done sparingly. The Judge, who comes to an opinion after comparison, should also disclose his expertise and also give reasons for the conclusions. A mere statement that the Court is of the opinion that the thumb impressions or the signature appears to be similar is not proper since as an expert, whose evidence is to be assessed, the Judge, who is also giving his opinion, should mention the reasons".


THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO          

C.R.P.No.3642 OF 2012  

03-08-2012

T.Venkat Swamy  

Agiru Pullaiah

!Counsel for the Petitioner

^Counsel for the Respondent

<Gist

>Head Note

?Cases referred
1) 2008(3) ALD 112 (SC)
2) 2011(6) ALD 741

ORDER:-
        The revision is filed against the order in I.A.No.107 of 2012 in O.S.No.16
of 2010 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge at Kollapur.

2.      The revision petitioner is the defendant.  The suit was filed for recovery
of money on the basis of a promissory note.  The trial of the case was completed
and the matter is coming for arguments.  At that stage, the present application
is filed for sending the suit document to the expert.  The Court below has
dismissed the application finding that the Court itself can compare signature
under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act.

3.      Naturally, delay in filing an application for expert is a good ground for
rejection of the same.  So also the comparison of the signatures by the Court
itself is not generally warranted and unless there is expertise in comparison of
the signatures, it cannot be resorted to.  When such comparison is to be made,
generally it shall be with the assistance.  But, however, in this case, when
there is oral evidence available on record, the Court may not be justified in
intention to resort to comparison.

3.      In this connection, it is useful to refer to a decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court reported in Thiruvengadam Pillai Vs. Navaneethammal1, whereunder
it was held that:
        "16. While there is no doubt that Court can compare the disputed
handwriting/ signature/ finger impression with the admitted handwriting/
signature/ finger impression, such comparison by Court without the assistance of
any expert, has always been considered to be hazardous and risky.  When it is
said that there is no bar to a Court to compare the disputed finger impression
with the admitted finger impression, it goes without saying that it can record
an opinion or finding on such comparison, only after an analysis of the
characteristics of the admitted finger impression and after verifying whether
the same characteristics are found in the disputed finger impression.  The
comparison of the two thumb impressions cannot be casual or by a mere glance.
Further, a finding in the judgment that there appeared to be no marked
differences between the admitted thumb impression and disputed thumb impression,
without anything more, cannot be accepted as a valid finding that the disputed
signature is of the person who has put the admitted thumb impression.  Where the
Court finds that the disputed finger impression and admitted thumb impression
are clear and where the Court is in a position to identify the characteristics
of fingerprints, the Court may record a finding on comparison, even in the
absence of an expert's opinion.  But where the disputed thumb impression is
smudgy, vague or very light, the Court should not hazard a guess by a casual
perusal

17. The decision in Murari Lal4 and Lalit Popli5  should not be construed as
laying a proposition that the Court is bound to compare the disputed and
admitted finger impressions and record a finding thereon, irrespective of the
condition of the disputed finger impression.  When there is a positive denial by
the person who is said to have affixed his finger impression and where the
finger impression in the disputed document is vague or smudgy or not clear,
making it difficult for comparison, the Court should hesitate to venture a
decision based on its own comparison of the disputed and admitted finger
impressions.  Further even in cases where the Court is constrained to take up
such comparison, it should make a thorough study, if necessary with the
assistance of Counsel, to ascertain the characteristics, similarities and
dissimilarities.  Necessarily, the judgment should contain the reasons for any
conclusion based on comparison of the thumb impression, if it chooses to record
a finding thereon.  The Court should avoid reaching conclusions based on a mere
casual or routine glance or perusal".
 4.     Further, it is also useful to refer to the judgment reported in
Y.Jogulamma @ Jyothi v. Chukkakula Kondamma and others2, wherein this Court held  
in Para No.24 as under:-
        "So far as the comparison of the signatures or the thumb impression is
concerned, such course has to be done sparingly.  The Judge, who comes to an 
opinion after comparison, should also disclose his expertise and also give
reasons for the conclusions.  A mere statement that the Court is of the opinion
that the thumb impressions or the signature appears to be similar is not proper
since as an expert, whose evidence is to be assessed, the Judge, who is also
giving his opinion, should mention the reasons".
       
Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, I do not find any justifiable
grounds to interfere with the order of the Court below.
       
5.      Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed in this petition shall stand closed.

_______________________________    
JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO      
Date:03.08.2012

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.