Friend Accused Of Using Blank Signatures To Create Sale Agreement; Orissa HC Upholds Expert Test After Plaintiff’s Evidence Ends

The plaintiff sued to declare an agreement dated 10 November 2012 void, alleging that the defendant had misused signatures he had placed on blank papers.

The defendant denied the allegation and relied, among other things, on two money receipts bearing the plaintiff’s disputed signatures.

After the plaintiff testified and was cross-examined, the defendant applied under Order 26 Rule 10-A read with Section 151 CPC to have the plaintiff’s specimen signatures examined by an expert.

The trial court allowed the application and directed that 36 specimen signatures be sent to the S.P., CID, CB, Odisha for comparison. The plaintiff challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution

Section 75(e) and Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC empower a court to commission scientific or expert investigation where a question in the suit involves scientific investigation that cannot conveniently be conducted before the court, and such investigation is necessary or expedient in the interests of justice

Section 73 of the Evidence Act permits the court to compare disputed and admitted signatures, but the court should ordinarily obtain expert assistance rather than decide a vital issue by visual comparison alone, as reflected in State (Delhi Administration) v. Pali Ram, AIR 1979 SC 14; Laxmi Bai v. A. Chandravati, AIR 1995 Ori 131; and O. Bharathan v. K. Sudhakaran, AIR 1996 SC 1140

Under Article 227, the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction is exercised sparingly and is not an appellate power to correct mere errors; interference is justified where a subordinate court exceeds its authority or its order involves patent perversity or a gross failure of justice, as stated in Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 328

The disputed signatures on the receipts were relevant to the parties’ competing accounts of payment and the vehicle transaction.

The trial court could reasonably conclude that expert comparison would assist it in resolving the dispute; such examination fell within the scientific-investigation power under Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC.

The High Court found no illegality or perversity in the trial court’s decision to order comparison, including its direction for 36 specimen signatures.

However, because the plaintiff’s evidence had not been completed when the order was made—and about ten years had since elapsed—the High Court considered it just to defer sending the documents for examination until that evidence was complete

It directed that the documents be sent for scientific examination, as ordered by the trial court, after completion of the plaintiff’s evidence, and requested the trial court to endeavour to dispose of the suit within six months