ORDER A.N. Dikshita, J.
1. This second appeal has been filed by the defendant-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 31-5-76, passed by the District Judge, Azamgarh, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 5-3-1974 decreeing the plaintiffs suit for the recovery of Rs. 10335/- with future and pendente lite interest at the rate of 2% per annum.
2. A suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondent against the appellant on the allegation that the defendant-appellant had borrowed Rs. 9000/- from the plaintiff with interest at the rate of 1% per month on 15-4-1972 and had executed a pro note in his favour. As the amount was not paid the suit was filed. The defendant contested the suit on various grounds. The main allegation of the defendant was that no pro note was ever executed by him in favour of the plaintiff. During the trial of the suit the plaintiff examined himself besides the scribe of the pro note Radhey Shyam and the attesting witness Munni Lal, P. W. 3. Radhey Shyam testified the execution of the pro note while Munni Lal testified the borrowing of the amount and the execution of the pro note. As the defendant-appellant had denied his signatures on the pro note Handwriting Expert Sri Madan Mohan Kacker was produced as P. W. 4, who compared the signatures on the pro note with the specimen signatures and other signatures of the defendant and found that they were the penmanship of the same person, namely, the defendant-appellant. The appellant also adduced evidence in denial and also examined an expert to support his contention that the signatures on the pro note were not his signatures. After appraising the evidence on record and believing the expert testimony of Sri Madan Mohan Kacker and disbelieving the deposition of Sri A. N. Mojumdar, Handwriting Expert, produced as D. W. 3, the trial court found that the defendant had taken the loan and had executed the pro note. The suit was accordingly decreed as already noted above.
3. Aggrieved the defendant-appellant preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 5-3-1974. After hearing the parties in detail the appellate court on a careful consideration of the evidence on record upheld the findings of the trial court decreeing the suit.
4. This second appeal arises against the judgment and decree of the appellate court dated 31-5-1976 by which the appeal filed by the defendant was dismissed.
5. Counsel for the parties have been heard. It has been urged on behalf of the appellant that no attempt was made by the trial court to find out the correctness of the signatures of the defendant on the pro note. I am unable to agree with this submission. The trial court as well as the appellate court have thoroughly dealt with this aspect and the appellate court has particularly gone into the evidence of the experts while reaching the conclusion that the pro note bore the signatures of the appellant. Counsel for the appellant then urged that the courts below erred in law in relying upon the testimony of Madan Mohan Kacker, P. W. 4, who had given his report. It is submitted that it was incumbent upon the courts below to have based their conclusion not merely on the report but on the evidence and the examination of the reports. Mere reliance on the report was not warranted and instead the courts below ought to have considered truthfulness of the report. This submission is without any merit. The appellate court has very strenuously tried to find out from the evidence on record and has very carefully examined the report and the testimony of Sri Madan Mohan Kacker, P. W. 4, and also the report of Sri A. N. Mojumdar, D. W. 3. The report of Sri A. N. Mojumdar, D. W. 3, was of no avail to the appellant and the courts below rightly discarded such incredible testimony. The trial court and the appellate court left only with the report of Sri Madan Mohan Kacker carefully examined it and found it convincing. Comparing the signatures of the appellant on record and in the light of the report of Sri Madan Mohan Kacker the appellate court rightly held that the pro note bore the signatures of the appellant. The similarities in the handwriting of the appellant were found on more than one document and the appellate court rightly decided to compare them in coming to the conclusion assigning the signatures on the pro note to the appellant. A very reasoned finding has been recorded by the appellate court to the effect that the appellant had put his signature on the pro note while borrowing the amount from the plaintiff. Further the criteria for coming to conclusion that the pro note bore the signatures of the appellant has been given in the report and Sri Madan Mohan Kacker, P. W. 4, has amply demonstrated in his evidence that the pronote bore the signatures of the appellant. The appellate court has rightly proceeded to base his findings on the criteria so given by the expert. It was enjoined that characteristics, pen habits, formation and mannerism of the author to whom the writing is attributed shall be observed. The appellate court has very minutely gone into all the aspects while basing its conclusion that the penmanship of the appellant is amply proved on the pro note. No doubt a court cannot blindly accept the report and a duty is cast oh the expert to furnish the necessary criteria for deciding the accuracy of his conclusion enabling the court to form its own independent judgment by applying the criteria to the facts proved in evidence. The appellate court has fully satisfied itself and has applied the criteria so furnished by -the expert while coming to his independent conclusion on the basis of the facts on record as well as the testimony of the witnesses. The appellate court on the basis of the material on record as well as the opinion of the experts was satisfied that the execution of the pro note was of none else than the authorship of the appellant and all the tests and precautions in that respect as regards the speed, movement, direction, pen pressure, direction and other special characteristics were found to be similar in the sets of signatures of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that no dissimilarity has been noted by the courts below. I find no merit in this contention. The question of dissimilarity would have arisen where the courts below had come to the conclusion that the signatures were not that of the appellant, but where the courts below had come to the conclusion that the pro note bore the signatures of the appellant the question of examining dissimilarity does not arise and such conclusions have been drawn by the courts below on the basis of the testimony of the plaintiff's witnesses as well as on the report of the expert.
6. Referring to V. Ramachandra Ayyar v. Ramalingam Chhettiar, AIR 1963 SC 302 the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in hearing a second appeal interference with the conclusions of the appellate court would arise only when the decision is contrary to law or some usage having the force of law, or that the decision has failed to determine some material issue of law or usage having the force of law, or if there is a substantial error or defect in the procedure provided by the Code, or by any other law for the time being in force which may have produced error or defect in the decision of the case upon the merits. I am in agreement with this submission of the learned counsel for the respondent Clause (c) of section 100(1) C.P.C. clearly refers to an error or defect connected with or relating to the procedure but it is not an error or defect in the appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties on merits. I am satisfied that there is no error or defect connected with or relating to the procedure in the instant case. If the appreciation of evidence made by the appellate court is patently erroneous and the finding of fact recorded in consequence is grossly erroneous that cannot be said to introduce a substantial error or defect in the procedure. In the instant case I have no hesitation to hold that the appellate court did not commit any patent error nor the appreciation of evidence by it suffers from any defect much less the defect or error in the procedure. Accordingly no interference is called for in this appeal which has no force and deserves to be dismissed.
7. In the result the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with costs.