Handwriting expert evidence in signature disputes cannot be brushed aside by a tribunal's own comparison of signatures.

A handwriting expert's opinion on disputed signatures is relevant evidence, though not conclusive, in deciding whether a rectification application was received within time. The Tribunal should not reject such evidence by making its own comparison of signatures; if dissatisfied, it ought to seek further expert opinion. On the facts noted, the Tribunal's finding of delay was based on ignoring the expert report and substituting its own view on genuineness, so that approach could not stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application for rectification as time-barred by disregarding the handwriting expert's opinion and by itself comparing the disputed signatures.

Analysis: The disputed question concerned whether the application said to have been filed on 12 August 2000 was actually received by the competent officer. The revisionist relied on an expert report opining that the signatures on the application matched the admitted signatures of the officer concerned, and there was no contrary expert opinion on record. The opinion of a handwriting expert is a relevant piece of evidence, though not binding, and if the Tribunal was dissatisfied with that opinion it could have sought another expert opinion rather than undertaking its own comparison of the signatures. The Tribunal was not justified in substituting its own view on genuineness of the signatures in place of expert evidence.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was wrong in ignoring the expert opinion and in forming its own conclusion on the disputed signatures; the finding of delay based on that approach could not stand.

---