Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 3968 (MAD)

D. THANGAVEL v. M. ELUMALAI

2018-10-26

P.T.ASHA

body2018
JUDGMENT P. T. ASHA, J. 1. The above Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the learned Additional District Munsif, Cheyyar in I.A.No.821 of 2010 in O.S.No.300 of 2008 in and by which the learned Judge has dismissed the application filed by the revision petitioner seeking to have the signature of the respondent found in the suit promissory note compared his signatures. Though the petition did not provide details of the documents based upon which the comparison was sought for, now in the affidavit filed in support of the said petition, the revision petitioner has stated that he requires the signature of the revision petitioner to be compared with the signatures found in the documents filed by the respondent into Court. 2. The suit is based on the promissory note and the signature has been disputed by the respondent/defendant. It is for this reason that the petition has been filed by the revision petitioner. 3. The respondent herein had resisted this petition inter alia contending that this petition should have taken when the respondent has filed its written statement and the said application was belated. 4. The learned Additional District Munsif, Cheyyar by his order dated 13.12.2010 dismissed the said application on the ground that the defendant has not filed any contemporaneous documents to compare the signature of the defendant. 5. Challenging the said application, the present revision petitioner is before this Court. 6. Heard M/s. AMI V.Kataria for Mr.P.J.Rishikesh learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 7. It is no doubt true that the revision petitioner has not filed any contemporaneous documents and the petition does not describe the documents with which the revision petitioner seeks to have the signature compared. However, on perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the application, it is seen that the revision petition/plaintiff wants to compare the said signature with the signature of the respondent found in the documents filed into the Court namely the Vakalat, plaint, written statement etc., 8. This Court, has time and again held that the signature in the pleadings cannot be the yardstick for comparing the signature in a disputed document since there is a possibility of the signatures being deliberately modified. However, this Court in its judgment reported in Chelladurai Vs. This Court, has time and again held that the signature in the pleadings cannot be the yardstick for comparing the signature in a disputed document since there is a possibility of the signatures being deliberately modified. However, this Court in its judgment reported in Chelladurai Vs. Velmurugan, (2014) 5 MLJ 722 has observed in paragraph 13 are as follows: (ii) On the other hand, if the person, who relies on the disputed signature, does have no objection for comparing it with, or seeks comparison of the same with, the admitted signature contained in a document even though the same came into existence after the dispute has arisen as he believes that the signatures are not disguised and they are good for comparison, then, the person disputing his signature in the document in question cannot have any valid objection for making such comparison. 9. It is also to be borne in mind that it is the plaintiff who has taken this application and therefore, there is a presumption that the revision petitioner/plaintiff is admitting the signature of the respondents in the written statement, Vakalat etc., 10. Considering the facts that the main defense taken by the respondent is not the signature found in the suit promissory note is not his, an opportunity ought to have been granted to the revision petitioner, to get signature to be verified by an expert. 11. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is Allowed and the order passed by the learned Additional District Munsif, Cheyyar is set aside. 12. This Court directs the learned Additional District Munsif, Cheyyar to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to take the suit promissory note along with the Vakalat and the written statement to the Forensic Department, Chennai for comparing the signatures found in the pro note with the signatures in the written statement and Vakalat and immediately take return of these documents after the Officials take copies of the signatures and hand over the same back to the Court within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.