Nooty Ramamohana Rao ORDER
Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J.
1. The defendants are the petitioners in this revision. They are aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry, dismissing IA No. 3147 of 2014 moved in OS No. 140 of 2012. IA No. 3147 of 2014 has been moved under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, to refer Exs. A1 and A2. The disputed suit promissory notes for rendering the opinion of a handwriting expert. The suit was instituted on the foot of the promissory notes, which were marked as Exs. A1 and A2. It will be relevant to notice that the 1st petitioner herein Smt. Koya Lalitha Kumari and her husband Sri Koya Govardan Rao, who has since died, are alleged to have executed the suit promissory notes Exs. A1 and A2. The case of the petitioners herein was that both the two suit promissory notes are fabricated and forged ones and that the 1st petitioner herein and, for that matter, her deceased husband have not signed and executed the suit promissory notes. When the 1st petitioner herein was examined as DW 1, she was cross-examined as to whether the Vakalatnama and the Written Statement in the suit have been filed into the Court after perusing the plaint averments and the suit documents or not and the 1st petitioner DW 1 did admit that the Written Statement was filed after examining the suit promissory notes in the Court. It is, therefore, contended on behalf of the plaintiff respondents herein that purposefully the 1st petitioner has now changed the style in which she normally used to sign with a view to mislead the Court by creating a doubt in its mind about the genuineness of Exs. A1 and A2. Therefore, the signatures appended by the 1st petitioner herein on the Written Statement cannot be taken as admitted signature or the one normally affixed by her in day-to-day transactions. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by a handwriting expert examining and comparing the signature appearing on the suit promissory note with that of the signature of the 1st petitioner herein appearing on the Written Statement. It was also further contended that the 1st petitioner herein has executed the Vakalatnama by signing as 'K. Lalitha', whereas her name is 'K. Lalitha Kumari' and strangely on the Written Statement, she affixed her signature as 'K. Lalitha Kumari'. It is, therefore, apparent that the 1st petitioner is purposefully and deliberately adopting different methods for affixing her signatures now, which can be quite different from those that are affixed by her during the normal course of events. Hence, no useful purpose would be served in examining them by any handwriting expert. Precisely, for this very reason, the interlocutory application has been dismissed.
2. However, Sri G. Krishna Murthy, learned Counsel for the petitioners, who has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by this Court in Budumuru Vijayanand v. Potnuru Bhagyalakshmi, MANU/AP/0449/2004 : 2004 (5) ALD 98 : 2004 (6) ALT 813, would contend that it is the discretion of the Court to forward the suit documents and seek for the opinion of the handwriting expert, but however, for the purpose of comparison, the trial Court is bound to obtain the specimen signatures of the person, who disputes the signature appearing on the suit document, in the Court and treat it as an admitted signature of the party and then call for the opinion of the handwriting expert.
3. It is true that in Budumuru Vijayanand's case (supra), Justice V.V.S. Rao, of this Court has taken the view as propounded by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, but however, it needs to be clarified that in Para 8 of the said judgment the following statement is found:
<........