ORDER
T. Meena Kumari, J.
1. This revision petition is filed against the judgment and decree dated 24-8-1999 passed by the senior civil Judge, Chirala in SC No. 7 of 1997.
2. Plaintiff is the petitioner herein. The suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 4,932/-being the balance of principal and interest due on a pronote dated 7-3-1989 executed by the respondent in favour of the petitioner herein for Rs. 5,500/- payable with interest at 18% per annum and also for subsequent interest.
3. The case of the petitioner is that on
7-3-1989 the respondent had borrowed a sum of Rs. 5,500/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at 18% p.a. and thus executed the suit pronote. It is averred in the plaint that on 26-3-1989, 14-7-1991,
8-8-1991, 6-10-1991, 23-2-1992 and 25-2-1994 the respondent-defendant made part payments of Rs. 500/-, Rs. 400/-, Rs. 300/-, Rs. 300/-, Rs. 300/- and Rs. 200/- respectively and that necessary endorsements were made on the reverse of the pronote. It is also averred that on 8-3-1992, 25-6-1992, 19-7-1992, 29-9-1992, 29-9-1992, 22-11-1992, 29-11-1992, 6-12-1992, 4-1-1993, 7-2-1993 and 18-4-1993 part payments in Rs. 200/-, Rs. 500/-, Rs. 300/- Rs. 300/-, Rs. 300/-, Rs. 300/-, Rs. 300/-, Rs. 100/-, R.300/- and Rs. 300/-respectively have been made. As the respondent has failed to discharge the balance amount due under the promissory note, the petitioner has filed the said suit.
4. The suit has been contested on behalf of the respondent admitting that he executed the suit promissory note and made several payments except the last payment of Rs. 200/- dated 25-2-1994. It is alleged that the said payment was fabricated and the signature made on the pronote is forged and since the last payment is fabricated and the suit was not preferred within the period of limitation, the suit is barred by limitation.
5. Before the Court below the petitioner-plaintiff was examined as PW1 and documents Exs. A1 to A12 were marked on this behalf. The respondent-defendant was examined as DW 1 and no documents were marked on his behalf. Ex.C1, the opinion of the expert, is the document marked through Court. In view of the dispute raised as regards the endorsement made under Ex.A7 i.e., on the reverse of Ex.A1 whereunder last payment was made, the said document was sent for expert opinion at the instance of DW1. The expert opined that the signature under Ex.A7 is forged
one. The Court below upon considering the rival contentions and also the opinion of the expert under Ex.C1 held that the signature of the respondent-defendant in Ex.A7 is forged and since the suit was not filed within the period of limitation from the date of last payment i.e., 18-4-1993, the suit is based by limitation and accordingly dismissed the suit with costs.
6. The Counsel representing the petitioner has argued that it is an admitted fact that respondent had borrowed the suit amount from the petitioner under Ex.A1 promissory note and party payments have been made on different dates and the endorsement last made for Rs. 200/- on the reverse of Ex.A1 was on 25-2-1994, which is marked as Ex.A7. It is also argued that the Court below ought not to have taken into consideration the expert opinion in view of the fact that there is no corroborative evidence supporting the opinion of the expert. In support of his contention that the report of the expert could not be straight away admissible without examining the said person, he relied upon a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Balkrishna Das v. Radha Devi, , It is, however, argued on behalf of the respondent that the endorsement made under Ex.A7 is subsequent to notice under Ex. A11 whereunder the endorsements made under Exs.A2 to A6 alone are mentioned. It is also argued that the Court below accepting the opinion of the expert rightly dismissed the suit as barred by limitation.
7. It is true that the expert was not subjected to cross-examination and there is no corroborative evidence except the opinion evidence. I see some force in the argument advanced by the Counsel for the petitioner that in the absence of the expert appearing as a witness and being subjected to cross-examination, his report alone cannot be treated as evidence. The Court below came to the conclusion that the endorsement made
under Ex.A7 is forged merely on the basis of the opinion of the expert. In the judgment referred to above, the relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder, a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court held that the expert’s opinion is only a piece of evidence and weight to be given to it has to be judged along with other evidence and as such it cannot be admitted without there being corroborative evidence.
“In the words of Rogers, an expert in any science, art or trade is one who by practice and observation has become experienced therein. An expert, therefore, really means a person who by reason of his training or experience is qualified to express an opinion whereas an ordinary witness is not competent to do so. His evidence is only an opinion evidence which is based on his special skill or experience. In view of the language of Section 45 it is necessary that before a person can be characterized as an expert, it is necessary that there must be some Material on the record to show that he is one who is, skilled in that particular science and is possessed of peculiar knowledge concurring the same. He must have made special study of the subject or acquired special experience therein. Thus before the testimony of a witness becomes admissible, his competence as an expert must be shown, may be, by showing that he was possessed of necessary qualification or that he has acquired special skill therein by experience. Apart from the question that the report of a handwriting expert may be read in evidence, what is necessary is that the expert should be subjected to cross-examination because an expert like any other witness is fallible and the real value of his evidence consists in the rightful inferences which he draws from what he has himself observed and not from what he merely surmises.
Unfortunately in the present case after the report of the Handwriting Experts from either side had been submitted for admission in evidence, a statement was made that their reports may be read in evidence without formal proof. The question arises whether such a report can ipso facto become opinion
evidence in the case. It has been urged that even though the reports as a document can be read in evidence but in the absence of the expert appearing as a witness and being subjected to cross-examination, his report alon cannot be treated as evidence much less an opinion evidence. Apart from this even a reading of the report does not disclose that the person who has given the report was really an expert in this particular branch or that he had acquired necessary skill by experience. The letter head on which the report is typed alone will not prove that the person was an expert. There is thus no material on the record to show that the persons who have submitted their reports regarding the disputed handwriting were qualified as experts with the meaning of Section 45 of the Evidence Act. In a situation like this, the reports were not at all admissible in evidence and the learned trial Court was certainly in error in placing reliance thereon. The expert’s evidence is only a piece of evidence and the weight to be given to it has to be judged along with other evidence as evidence of this nature is ordinarily not conclusive. Such evidence, therefore, cannot be taken as substantive piece of evidence but is there is corroborate the other evidence.”
8. In the light of the judgment of the Allahabad High Court referred to above, it cannot be held that the lower Court was right in dismissing the suit on the basis of the opinion of the expert under Ex.C1. Hence, the finding of the Court below that the suit is barred by limitation has to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Court below to hear the same afresh. The Court below shall dispose of the suit within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
9. The revision petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.