Raj Kumar Wadhwa vs Sumesh Kumar Mehta and another

A.N. Jindal, J.—This petition has arisen out of the order dated 1.11.2011 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Sonoepat, declining the application filed by the defendant-petitioner for leading additional evidence by examining the documents Ex. P3 to Ex. P5 through Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. The defendant-petitioner had filed an application for leading additional evidence for sending documents Ex. P3 to Ex. P5 to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, after he refused to place reliance on the report made by the Government Handwriting Expert, Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban, Karnal.

Factual background of the case is that the plaintiff-respondents had filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 6.3.2007 on 12.12.2008. On appearance, the defendant filed written statement and issues were framed on 24.3.2009. The plaintiff concluded their evidence on 29.10.2009. After availing three effective opportunities to conclude his evidence, the defendant could not conclude the evidence. On 2.4.2010, the defendant sought permission to get the aforesaid documents examined from the government finger print expert, Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban, which was dismissed by the trial court with liberty that he could examine any hand writing expert by getting the documents compared on his own responsibility with further observations that if the matter is referred to the Government Handwriting Expert, Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban, then the case would unnecessarily be delayed.

On challenge of the said order through petition No. 2550 of 2010, this court allowed the petitioner to get his signatures compared from the Government Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban, Karnal, Haryana. Accordingly, the documents were sent to the laboratory, which submitted its report with the following observations:

LABORATORY EXAMINATION

All the documents were carefully and thoroughly examined with Scientific Instruments, such as, Stereo Zoom Microscope, Vide Spectral Comparator, Docucenter expert etc. under different lighing condition and I am of the opinion that : OPINION-1 On inter-se examination of standard signatures marked S1, A1 to A10 reveals that :

(i) The standard signature marked A1 is a photostat signature and show similarities with the specimen signatures marked S1 and standard signatures marked A2 to A6, A10 in design of characters, their writing movement as well as manner and nature of connecting strokes. The standard signatures marked S1, A1 to A6 & A10 are all freely written and show reasonably inter-se consistency among them with natural variations in the formation of various characters.

(ii) Standard signatures A7 & A8 are overwritten in various characters and also show retouching at various places and hence have not been considered towards opinion.

(iii) The standard signatures marked &9 is somewhat conscious in its execution resulting in the isolated formation of characters and does not show consistency with standard signatures marked S1, A1 to A6, A10. Hence standard signature marked A9 has not been considered towards opinion. Comparison of standard signatures marked S1, A1 to A6, A10 with Questioned signatures marked Q1, Q2 & Q4 shows some similarities in the execution of characters such as: shape of the body of part of ''j'', nature of bifurcation at its top asin Q2, Q1 vide A2, S1 the nature and location of ''dot'' of ''j'' as observed Q2 & Q4 is similarly exemplified in S1 and A2; shape and direction of axis of ''a in the word ''Raj'' in Q2 vide A2; Nature o1 bifurcation in the two strokes of ''r'' and rightward, upward direction of its finish as in Q4 vide A2; Compressed nature of body oval of ''a'' in the word ''Raj'' (Q1, Q4) and in the word ''Kumar'' (Q2, Q4) vide A1; Extended location of commencement of body curved part of ''R'' vide Q2, S1, A2. However, the characteristics such as: Vertical straight nature of J in Q4; Movement in the body pail of ''m'' with omission of its terminal part resulting in as appearance as ''n'' in Q2, Q4, nature of angularity in the body part of ''m'' (Q1); Movement in the body part of ''r'' (Q1, Q2); right to left direction and location of commencement of buckle of ''K'', its shape as in Q2, location of buckel of ''K'' (Q4) w.r.t. its vertical staff: Shape of the body curved part of ''R'' (Q1, Q2, Q4); Nature of strokes at one or the other places as observed in questioned signatures marked Q1, Q2 * Q4 is also not explainable from the standards incorporated in this opinion. In addition to these, in questioned signature marked Q2 re-touching hae been observed in the upper part of vertical staff of ''R'' and upper pan of ''j'' in the word ''Raj''. Indentation have been observed undereneath the characters ''a''& ''j" in the word ''Raj'' in Q1 and underneath the characters ''m'' & ''a'' in the word ''Kumar'' in Q1. Retouching is also observed in the upper part of vertical staff in ''R'' in Q1. Based on the above observations between standard questioned signatures, it has not been possible to fix the authorship of Q1, Q2 & Q4 in comparison with supplied standards marked S1, A1 to A6, A10.

OPINION-2 Comparison of standard signatures marked S1, A1 to A6, A10 with questioned signature marked Q3 shows that the movement, manner as well) as nature of connecting strokes among the characters as observed in Q3 are not explainable from the supplied standards marked S1, A1 to A6, A10. As such, it has not been possible to express a definite opinion on Q3 in comparison with supplied standards marked S1, A1 to A6, A10.

Being dissatisfied with the report, the defendant filed the objection petition and thereafter requested the court to get the admitted and disputed signatures compared from any other independent Government Agency i.e. Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hydrabad. The trial court dismissed the objection petition on 13.1.2011 and turned down the request of the defendant for comparison of the admitted signatures and disputed signatures from the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hydrabad. Still being dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner has come up in the revision petition.

The petitioner himself had moved the application for getting the signatures compared from the Fingerprint Expert from the Government Laboratory i.e. Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban, Karnal, but he himself was dissatisfied with the said report. The court in its order dated 13.1.2011 has elaborately discussed the reasons for not allowing the objections raised by the defendant to the report made by the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban, Karnal. The civil revision against the said order was also dismissed by this Court on 9.2.2011.

In any case, the opinion formed by the Handwriting Expert is not conclusive but an opinion evidence but the court has to decide the execution of the documents on the basis of the other evidence. At the same time, in addition to the evidence led by the parties, the court has the power to examine the documents with its judicious eye. As such, for the aforesaid reasons and for the reason that the revision petition against the order passed on the objection petition to the opinion, having been dismissed by the court, there are no grounds to further permit the petitioner for sending the documents to the another expert.

No grounds to interfere. Dismissed.