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.