Judicial comparison of disputed signatures must be used cautiously; credible proof of promissory note execution can still sustain a decree.

A disputed signature should not be rejected solely on a judge's comparison with signatures in a written statement or vakalatnama executed after the controversy arose. Although Section 73 of the Evidence Act permits judicial comparison, the court stressed that such comparison must be used cautiously and cannot by itself displace credible evidence of execution. The attesting witness and the promissory note were found sufficient to prove the transaction, while the defence version and the trial court's basis for rejection were disbelieved. The dismissal of the suit was therefore unsustainable, and the plaintiff's claim on the promissory note was accepted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the dismissal of the suit could be sustained when the trial court compared the disputed signature with signatures in the written statement and vakalatnama, and whether the plaintiff had otherwise proved execution of the promissory note.

Analysis: The court held that although a judge may compare writings under Section 73 of the Evidence Act, such comparison must be made with caution and should not rest on signatures appended after the dispute arose. The comparison made by the trial court with the written statement and vakalatnama was therefore not a proper basis for rejecting the suit. The evidence of the attesting witness and the promissory note itself were found sufficient to establish the transaction, while the defence version and the evidence relied on by the trial court were disbelieved.

Conclusion: The dismissal of the suit was held to be unsustainable, and the plaintiff's claim was accepted.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded, the judgment of the court below was set aside, and the suit on the promissory note was decreed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A disputed signature should not be rejected solely by a judicial comparison with signatures created after the controversy arose, and a decree may be supported where the execution of the document is otherwise proved by credible evidence.

---