Ram Babu Sharma vs Iqlaq Khan and Others

Rajendra Menon, J.

Challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made to an order (Annexure P/1) dated 07.12.2004 by which an application filed by the petitioner to get the agreement in question dated 05.03.2001 and the signatures therein examined by a Handwriting Expert, has been rejected by the Court below.

It is the case of the petitioner that once a dispute with regard to signature is raised, the matter is to be referred to the Handwriting Expert, and the learned Court only on the ground that the signatures can be verified by the court itself, has rejected the application filed by the petitioner. It is contended by Shri Soni by placing reliance on a decision reported in 1966 (1) MPJR SN 13, Gulabdas V. Punjab National Bank & Others, that a disputed signature in a document should be examined by taking assistance of an expert and the court should not act as an expert. Similarly, placing reliance on the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajit Savant Majagavi Vs. State of Karnataka, , it was argued by Shri Soni that the Court should not normally taken upon itself the responsibility of comparing the disputed signature. Accordingly, it was argued that the order impugned is unsustainable.

Having considered the contentions and on perusal of the record it is seen that the Court has held that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not necessary to refer the disputed signature to the handwriting expert. It has been held by the learned Court that the matter can be decided by verification of signatures by the Court. Accordingly, for the aforesaid reason the application has been rejected. In the judgments referred to and relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, observations are that the Courts should not venture into the area which is meant for the experts, but there is no hard and fast rule that in all cases when an application is made, matter should be referred to a handwriting expert. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the court has found that for verification of the disputed signature, service of an expert is not necessary. It is not a case where interference at this stage under Article 227 of the Constitution is called for. The learned Courts below having exercised its discretion judiciously, no case is made out for interference. Accordingly, the writ petition and M.W.P. No. 1512/04 stand rejected.