Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1676 (MAD)

A. Arumugham v. K. M. Thambirajan & Another

2005-10-17

P.D.DINAKARAN

body2005
Judgment :- (C.R.P. filed against the order dated 7.10.2004 made in I.A.No.151 of 2004 in O.S.No.816 of 1999 on the file of II Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode.) The revision is directed against the order dated 7.10.2004 made in I.A.No.151 of 2004 in O.S.No.816 of 1999 allowing the said application and thereby refusing to accept the report of the Handwriting expert of Forensic Science Department, Chennai in D.No.7100/03,DOC 451/03 dated 25.5.2004 as conclusive evidence in respect of the alleged signature of the first defendant/revision petitioner herein found in the agreement of sale dated 8.12.1994 which is the subject matter of the suit in O.S.No.816 of 1999, laid for specific performance. 2. The relevant facts of the case in brief are as follows: 2.1. The first respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.No.816 of 1999 for specific performance of the agreement of sale-dated 8.12.1994 executed by the revision petitioner/first defendant, who has denied his signature in the said agreement of sale. 2.2. In order to substantiate his claim, the first respondent had taken out an application in I.A.No.761 of 2000 in O.S.No.816 of 1999 seeking to refer the agreement of sale for expert opinion on the signature found in the agreement by comparing the same with his admitted signatures. 2.3. Even though the learned trial judge referred the said document for opinion, the Forensic Science Department required further documents for comparison of the disputed signature of the first defendant found in the agreement of sale dated 8.12.1994, however, the revision petitioner/first defendant could not furnish further documents. Hence, the Forensic Science Department, satisfied with the materials available with it, offered its opinion, which is sought to be rejected by the first respondent herein/plaintiff in I.A.No.151 of 2004. 2.4. Learned Subordinate Judge, by order dated 7.10.2004, appreciating the contention of the first respondent herein that since the revision petitioner/first defendant could not furnish further materials for comparison of the disputed signature, the report of the Handwriting Expert of Forensic Science Department dated 25.5.2004 offered on the alleged signature of the first defendant found in the agreement of sale dated 8.12.1994, without reference to any further document, could not be relied upon, allowed I.A.No.151 of 2004 refusing to accept the report of the Handwriting expert as a court document. Against the order of the learned trial Judge, the present revision has been filed. 3. Against the order of the learned trial Judge, the present revision has been filed. 3. The core contention made on behalf of the revision petitioner/first defendant is that the mere non-furnishing of further materials would not vitiate the opinion of the Handwriting expert rendered in the report dated 25.5.2004 as the adequacy and sufficiency of reasons that weighed the report are the subject matter of trial and the same cannot be a ground for refusing to mark the report itself. 4. Mr.S.Sounder, learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff fairly submits that during trial the first respondent may raise objections to the report of the Handwriting expert and the reasons that weighted the report before the same is admitted in evidence by the trial Court. 5. It is well settled that the objection as to the admissibility of a document is available to be raised even at a later stage and merely because the document has been marked as an exhibit, such objection is not excluded. (vide: R.V.E.Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P.Temple (2003) 8 SCC 752 ). This Court in S.Mohammad Ali v. Basheer Ahmed ( 2001(2) CTC 391 ) has held that the permission granted to produce a document cannot be construed that the document is automatically admissible in law. 6. Following the above-said principle, I hold that the report of the Handwriting expert can be received as a document subject to the objections that may be raised by the plaintiff during trial. Accordingly, the order dated 7.10.2004 made in I.A.No.151 of 2004 in O.S.No.816 of 1999 is set aside with the liberty granted to the first respondent/ plaintiff to raise all objections as to the admissibility of the report of Handwriting expert dated 25.5.2004 and to challenge the reasons that weighed the report. The revision is ordered accordingly. No costs. Connected C.M.P. is closed.