Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 336 (MAD)

Gopal and another v. Ambiga and others

2002-04-12

K.GNANAPRAKASAM

body2002
ORDER: The first respondent in this revision petition, who is the second plaintiff in the suit, filed an application for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to take the L.T.I. Of the first defendant in the open Court and also to take the same along with the L.T.I. found in the sale deed dated 28.5.1985 in a sealed cover to be examined by the Finger Print Expert of Forensic Science Laboratory, Chennai and the said petition was allowed by the trial Court by an order dated 5.10.2001 and the said order is being questioned in this revision petition. 2. The only contention that has been advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that an Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed for the purposes of taking the L.T.I. of the first respondent and also the L.T.I. available in the sale deed dated 28.5.1995. But on the other hand, the concerned person from the Forensic Science Department can come to the Court and take photograph of the L.T.I. of the first defendant and also to take the photograph of the L.T.I. found in the sale deed dated 28.5.1995. 3. The trial Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner to take the thumb impression of the first defendant and also to take the disputed thumb impression in the document in a sealed cover to be handed over to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Chennai and get Expert’s report after comparison. 4. This Court in number of cases has deprecated the practice of sending the documents to the Forensic Laboratory. As a matter of fact, the petitioner has placed reliance upon the case reported in Saroja v. Poorna Mariyal, (2002)1 M.L.J. 151 wherein it is observed that: "The opinion of the handwriting expert may not be a conclusive one, but at the same time, it will definitely help the Court to come to the conclusion for effective adjudication of the dispute. The sending of original documents is deprecated and under the circumstances, the handwriting expert can be permitted to take the photographic copies of the documents in the presence of the officers of the Court and thereafter, he can give the opinion. The sending of original documents is deprecated and under the circumstances, the handwriting expert can be permitted to take the photographic copies of the documents in the presence of the officers of the Court and thereafter, he can give the opinion. If that is not possible, then the revision petitioners themselves can arrange to take photographic copies of the documents containing the admitted signatures as well as the disputed signatures of the first respondent in the Court in the presence of the Court Officials and send those copies to the Handwriting Expert for the purpose of comparison and opinion." 5. I am in complete agreement with the above said observations. The order dated 5.10.2001 passed by the trial Court in I.A. No. 561 of 2001 is hereby set aside and the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The Handwriting Expert or the concerned officials from the Forensic Science Laboratory may be summoned and he/they may be permitted to take photograph of the documents in the presence of the Officer of the Court and if that is not possible then the respondents themselves can arrange to take photographs of the documents and also to take L.T.I. of the first defendant in the Court, in the presence of the Court officials and send those copies to the Handwriting Expert for the purpose of comparison and opinion. 6. This revision petition came up for admission and I was not inclined to order notice to the respondents for the reason that no purpose would be served in sending the notice to the respondents as it could otherwise cause unnecessary delay and expenses, and as this Court feels that the order passed by the trial Court is erroneous and the same could be rectified without the presence of other side. That therefore, I have dispensed with the notice to the respondents and passed the order to mitigate the inconvenience that would be caused to the respondents. 7. In the result, the revision petition is allowed and the order passed by the trial Court is set aside. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P. No.4938 of 2002 is closed.