The Andhra Pradesh High Court has clarified that a trial court cannot dismiss an application for handwriting comparison under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 merely because the defendant’s written statement is ambiguously worded. The judgment reinforces procedural fairness and the right to present scientific evidence where authenticity of a signature is genuinely disputed.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Dathi Ajay Kumar, is the defendant in Original Suit No. 134 of 2021 filed by Lenka Appalanaidu, the plaintiff, seeking recovery of a debt based on a promissory note. The petitioner contested the authenticity of his signature on the promissory note, alleging forgery. To substantiate his defense, he sought to have his handwriting compared with the signature on the document through a forensic expert.
Key Facts
- The suit was filed on the basis of a promissory note dated 12.08.2019, allegedly signed by the petitioner
- The petitioner filed an unnumbered interlocutory application on 15.11.2025 under Section 39 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, seeking court direction to obtain his specimen signature in open court for comparison with the disputed signature
- The trial court returned the application on 19.12.2025, observing that the petitioner had admitted his signature in the written statement
- The petitioner filed a revised application on 07.01.2026, clarifying that he had never admitted the signature in the written statement
- The trial court again returned the application without numbering or hearing
- The petitioner filed the present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution on 28.03.2026
Procedural History
- 12.08.2019: Promissory note allegedly executed
- 15.03.2021: Original Suit No. 134 of 2021 filed by plaintiff
- 15.11.2025: First interlocutory application (IA) filed under Section 39 BSA, unnumbered
- 19.12.2025: Trial court returned IA, citing alleged admission of signature in written statement
- 07.01.2026: Revised IA filed by petitioner, reiterating denial of signature
- 08.01.2026: Trial court again returned IA without numbering
- 28.03.2026: Civil Revision Petition No. 1040 of 2026 filed before Andhra Pradesh High Court
- 09.04.2026: Judgment delivered by Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao
The Parties' Positions
Petitioner’s Position: The written statement categorically denied the authenticity of the signature. The trial court erred in concluding otherwise. The application under Section 39 BSA is a legitimate and necessary step to determine the genuineness of the document, and its rejection without adjudication violates the right to fair trial.
Respondent’s Position: The written statement contained language that amounted to an admission of signature. Hence, no further evidence was required. The application was frivolous and an abuse of process.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought direction to the trial court to number the interlocutory application, hear it on merits, and pass appropriate orders under Section 39 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a trial court may refuse to number or entertain an application under Section 39 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 for handwriting comparison solely on the ground that the defendant’s written statement allegedly admits the signature, when the denial is plausible and not unequivocal.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on the principle that the burden of proving the authenticity of a document lies on the party producing it. He argued that Section 39 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 explicitly permits the court to direct the production of specimen handwriting for comparison when the authenticity of a signature is in dispute. He emphasized that the written statement did not contain any clear admission of signature, and the trial court’s interpretation was factually incorrect. He cited State of Maharashtra v. Damu to underscore that courts must not pre-judge evidentiary issues at the interlocutory stage.
For the Respondent
The respondent contended that the written statement contained phrases such as "I do not recall signing any such document," which, when read in context, amounted to an implied admission. He argued that the application was an attempt to delay proceedings and that the court had rightly exercised its discretion to reject a frivolous request.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a close reading of the written statement and found no unequivocal admission of signature. The phrase relied upon by the trial court - "I do not recall signing any such document" - was held to be a denial of memory, not an admission of execution. The Court observed that such a statement falls squarely within the ambit of a dispute over authenticity, which is precisely the scenario contemplated by Section 39 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
"The trial court’s observation that the defendant admitted his signature is not sustainable on a fair reading of the written statement. The denial, however qualified, is sufficient to invoke the provisions of Section 39 for comparison of handwriting."
The Court further held that the refusal to number the application amounted to a denial of hearing and violated the principles of natural justice. The trial court’s duty under the new Evidence Act is to facilitate the ascertainment of truth, not to screen applications on preliminary grounds without adjudication. The Court emphasized that the admissibility of evidence and the weight to be attached to it are matters for trial, not for rejection at the interlocutory stage.
The Verdict
The Civil Revision Petition was allowed. The High Court directed the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, to forthwith number the interlocutory application filed on 07.01.2026 as IA No. 1 of 2026 and dispose of it expeditiously in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. All pending miscellaneous petitions in the matter shall stand closed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Interlocutory Applications Cannot Be Dismissed on Superficial Grounds
- Practitioners must now argue that any denial of signature - even if qualified - triggers the right to seek handwriting comparison under Section 39 BSA
- Trial courts must number and hear such applications; refusal to do so is a procedural illegality subject to revision under Article 227
Section 39 BSA Expands Access to Forensic Evidence
- The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, replaces archaic evidentiary barriers with a facilitative framework
- Applications for specimen collection are no longer subject to judicial discretion on merit at the threshold stage
- Courts must treat such applications as procedural tools for truth-finding, not as litigation tactics
Written Statements Must Be Interpreted Strictly
- Ambiguous or evasive language (e.g., "I do not recall") does not constitute admission
- Courts must avoid reading admissions into denials unless the language is unambiguous
- This prevents premature dismissal of legitimate defenses in document authenticity disputes
