Constitution of India — Article 227 — Scope of supervisory jurisdiction — Interference with interlocutory orders — Order directing comparison of disputed signature with admitted signatures — No jurisdictional error, perversity, or illegality established — Interference declined.
Held, the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is confined to cases of jurisdictional error, patent illegality, or perversity. Where the Trial Court, upon consideration of the pleadings and admitted signatures, directs comparison of disputed signatures with admitted signatures for expert opinion, and no prejudice or legal infirmity is demonstrated, such discretionary order does not warrant interference. Paras 7 to 10.
Civil Procedure — Suit based on promissory note — Denial of execution by defendant — Application seeking comparison of signatures — Registered documents of earlier years treated as contemporaneous — Legality of reference to expert upheld.
Where the disputed promissory note is of the year 2020 and the admitted signatures relied upon are contained in registered cancellation deeds of 2016 and 2019, such documents are sufficiently proximate in time and may be regarded as contemporaneous for the purpose of comparison of signatures. The Trial Court committed no illegality in allowing the application. Paras 7 and 9.
Evidence — Comparison of disputed signature with admitted signature — Documents executed in favour of third parties — Relevance — Admitted signatures therein sufficient for expert comparison.
The contention that the cancellation deeds were not inter se between the parties is immaterial once it is not disputed that the documents contain the admitted signatures of the defendant. For the purpose of comparison of signatures, the existence of admitted signatures is the relevant consideration. Para 8.
Civil Procedure — Expert opinion — Procedural stage — No prejudice caused by sending document for comparison — Right to object to expert report preserved.
Sending the disputed promissory note for expert comparison does not cause prejudice at the interlocutory stage, as the party retains the right to raise objections to the expert’s report and to cross-examine the expert during trial. Para 10.
Result — Civil Revision Petition dismissed — No order as to costs. Para 11.
────────────────────────────────────────
RATIO DECIDENDI
────────────────────────────────────────
The ratio of the decision is that an order permitting comparison of disputed signatures with admitted signatures through expert opinion is a procedural and discretionary step taken in aid of adjudication of the suit and does not determine substantive rights of the parties. When execution of a promissory note is denied, the Trial Court is justified in directing comparison with admitted signatures appearing on registered documents of reasonably proximate years, which may be treated as contemporaneous. The fact that such documents were executed in favour of third parties does not affect their utility for comparison once the signatures therein are admitted.
Further, supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be invoked to reappreciate or interfere with such discretionary interlocutory orders in the absence of patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error. Since no prejudice is caused and the party retains the right to challenge the expert evidence at trial, interference is unwarranted.
