Disputed guarantee signatures require fair opportunity for expert comparison; denial of such evidence can violate natural justice.

A party who promptly and specifically denies execution of a disputed guarantee must be given a fair opportunity to prove that denial, including by handwriting expert comparison where the signature itself is in issue. In summary recovery proceedings under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, procedural flexibility does not justify rejecting a bona fide defence or treating silence in response to a bank notice as an admission. Where the bank has not led sufficient evidence of execution and the tribunals proceed on a mistaken factual basis, refusal to allow expert comparison breaches natural justice and cannot stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant, having specifically denied execution of the alleged guarantee, was entitled to have the disputed signature referred to a handwriting expert and whether refusal of that request, on the facts, violated the principles of natural justice.

Analysis: The appellant had raised the dispute at the earliest stage in his written statement and consistently denied that he had signed the guarantee. The record did not support the assumption that the application for expert comparison was filed only to delay the proceedings. In summary proceedings under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, procedural flexibility does not permit denial of a reasonable opportunity to prove a bona fide defence. The tribunals below proceeded on a mistaken factual basis, ignored the clear denial in the written statement, and treated the absence of a reply to the bank's notice as an admission, which was legally incorrect. Where the signature itself is in dispute and no sufficient evidence has been led by the bank to establish execution, the party denying the document must be allowed to adduce appropriate evidence, including expert comparison.

Conclusion: The refusal to permit handwriting comparison was unjustified and the orders of the tribunals below could not stand. The appellant succeeded and the matter was directed to be processed with referral of the disputed signature to a handwriting expert.

Ratio Decidendi: A party who promptly and specifically denies execution of a disputed guarantee cannot be denied a fair opportunity to prove that denial, and in summary recovery proceedings the tribunal must permit reasonable evidence, including expert comparison of signatures, where required to secure natural justice.

---