Handwriting expert reference on disputed promissory note allowed where execution and alterations are specifically challenged.

Where execution or alteration of a promissory note is specifically disputed, the court should ordinarily permit handwriting or chemical examination if it may assist in reaching the truth. Expert opinion was treated as a relevant aid, and there was no legal bar to comparing handwriting, ink, or alleged alterations in the note. The refusal to refer the document for expert scrutiny was therefore unsustainable because it could deny the affected party a fair opportunity to rebut the presumption arising from a negotiable instrument. The suit promissory note had to be referred to a handwriting expert, and the revision was allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the disputed promissory note should be referred to a handwriting expert for comparison of the handwriting, ink, and alleged alterations.

Analysis: The execution and contents of the promissory note were specifically disputed, including the alleged alteration in the figure and the amount written in words. Expert opinion was held to be a relevant and useful aid in deciding such a controversy, and there was no legal embargo on seeking handwriting or chemical examination. The Court also relied on the principle that a party must be given a fair opportunity to rebut the presumption arising in relation to negotiable instruments and that refusal to obtain expert opinion may deprive that opportunity.

Conclusion: The suit promissory note had to be referred to a handwriting expert, and the refusal by the court below was unsustainable. The revision was allowed in favour of the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the execution or alteration of a document is specifically disputed and expert examination may assist in reaching the truth, the court should ordinarily permit referral to a handwriting expert so that the affected party has a fair opportunity to rebut the case against it.

---