The existence of contemporaneous documents would certainly be helpful to an expert. Further, if the signatures on the depositions or the vakalat or pleadings are similar to those on the disputed document, they may also, be of help. However, it is too difficult to expect the existence of contemporaneous documents or similarity between signatures on the disputed documents and those on the pleadings and vakalat. Mere absence of such helpful circumstances cannot render the whole exercise under Section 45 of the Act impossible or untenable. An expert is known for his capability to arrive at the conclusion even by taking note of the undisputed writing irrespective of the time gap between the date of the sample and the date on which the disputed document was signed. At any rate, the opinion expressed by an expert is not conclusive in nature and the parties to the litigation can certainly put forward their contentions in favour of or against such opinion.


THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY            

C.R.P.No.402 of 2012

13.09.2012

Jonnalagadda Ravi Sankar.

Jakka Rama Krishna Rao and another.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Sai Gangadhar Charmarthy

Counsel for the Respondents:  Sri P.Venkat Rao

<Gist :

>Head Note:

?Cases Referred:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY        
Civil Revision Petition No.402 of 2012
ORDER:
The petitioner is the husband of the 2nd respondent and the 1st respondent is
his father-in-law.  It appears that the relationship between the petitioner and
the respondent is strained.  The petitioner filed O.S.No.41 of 2008 in the Court
of Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda against the respondents for the relief of
specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 13.07.2003.  According to
him, the 1st respondent, who is the owner of the property, offered the same to
the petitioner for a consideration of Rs.1,70,000/- and executed an agreement of
sale, on receiving a sum of Rs.1,68,000/-.  The respondents filed written
statement opposing the suit.  Issues were framed and the trial of the suit
commenced.  

On behalf of the petitioner, P.W.2, the scribe of the agreement was examined.
Though in the chief-examination, he supported the version of the petitioner, he
appears to have stated something different in the cross-examination.  Faced with
this situation, the petitioner filed I.A.No.804 of 2011 under Section 45 of the
Evidence Act (for short 'the Act') with a prayer to send the document to a hand
writing expert.  The application was opposed by the respondents.  The trial
Court dismissed the I.A. through order, dated 03.12.2011 on the ground that no
contemporaneous document signed by the 1st respondent is available and that the
signatures on the vakalat and written statement in the suit are at variance with
the one on the document. Hence, this civil revision petition.

Heard Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
P,Venkat Rao, learned counsel for the respondents.

The exercise to be undertaken under Section 45 of the Act is somewhat typical.
It is only an expert, who is conversant with the niceties of writing etc., that
can express his view as to whether a particular writing or signature sent for
comparison is that of the person, who is alleged to have subscribed to it.  The
existence of contemporaneous documents would certainly be helpful to an expert.
Further, if the signatures on the depositions or the vakalat or pleadings are
similar to those on the disputed document, they may also, be of help.  However,
it is too difficult to expect the existence of contemporaneous documents or
similarity between signatures on the disputed documents and those on the
pleadings and vakalat.  Mere absence of such helpful circumstances cannot render
the whole exercise under Section 45 of the Act impossible or untenable.   An
expert is known for his capability to arrive at the conclusion even by taking
note of the undisputed writing irrespective of the time gap between the date of
the sample and the date on which the disputed document was signed.  At any rate,
the opinion expressed by an expert is not conclusive in nature and the parties
to the litigation can certainly put forward their contentions in favour of or
against such opinion.  The grounds mentioned by the trial Court while rejecting
the application cannot be sustained.

Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order under revision
is set aside.   As a result, the I.A. stands allowed and the trial Court is
directed to send the documents to an expert together with the specimen
signatures of the 1st respondent taken and certified by the trial Court.
The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition also stands disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.

____________________  
L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J.    
Dated:13.09.2012

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.

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.

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