Jayaraman, J. Ashok Kumar and J. Sathish Kumar vs Limichand

G. Rajasuria, J.—Anim-adverting upon the order dated 27.2.2008 passed in I.A. No. 8 of 2008 in O.S. No. 32 of 2007 by the

Subordinate Judge, Mannargudi, this civil revision petition is filed.

A ''resume'' of facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus:

The respondent, as plaintiff, filed the suit O.S. No. 32 of 2007 for specific performance of an agreement to sell. The respondent/plaintiff adduced

evidence and closed his side. The petitioners/defendants, on entering upon their defence, filed an application I.A. No. 8 of 2008 for sending the

disputed endorsements and signatures on the agreement to sell to the expert for obtaining opinion, as according to them those endorsements and

signatures are not that of theirs and they were not the author of the same. The sub Court dismissed the said application on the sole ground that the

Court itself, as per Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act can compare the disputed signatures with the admitted signatures. Being dissatisfied with

and aggrieved by the said order this civil revision petition has been filed on various grounds.

The learned Counsel for the petitioners/defendants would develop his argument to the effect that even though Section 73 of the Act empowers

the Court to compare the signatures, nevertheless it is advisable to send the disputed endorsement/signatures to the expert, who by applying his

expert knowledge, would be able to enlighten the Court in a much better manner.

However, the learned Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, placing reliance on the following judgements (i) 2006(3) CTC 39 � Central Bank

of India (A Nationalised Bank), rep by its Manager N. Gururajan v. Antony Hardware Mart, rep. by its Proprietor, K. Subbiah and (ii) 2008(2)

CTC 464 N. Ayyasamy v. S.K. Chinnasamy would develop his argument to the effect that at the first instance, the Court could compare the

handwritings/signatures and in the event of the Court finding any difficulty, it is open for the Court to send them to the expert.

Whereas, the learned Counsel for the petitioners/defendants would invite the attention of this Court to the decision of the Honourable Apex

Court reported in Mrs. Kalyani Baskar Vs. Mrs. M.S. Sampornam, and develop his arguement that as per the view of the Honourable Apex

Court, it is just and necessary to send the disputed signatures for expert opinion.

When all said and done, considering the pro et contra, in this factual matrix, I am of the considered opinion that the trial Court judgement is not

in accordance with the view as found exemplified and demonstrated in the Division Bench judgement of this Court reported in 2006(3) CTC 39

� Central Bank of India (A Nationalised Bank), rep by its Manager N. Gururajan v. Antony Hardware Mart, rep. by its Proprietor, K. Subbiah.

The order of the lower Court gives the impression as though the Court can itself could compare the disputed signature with the admitted signature

and that there is no necessity to cite the reasons regarding the arduous nature or otherwise, in comparing the handwritings/signatures in this case.

The learned Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would submit that in such a case, necessary direction might be given to the trial Court to consider

the matter on the line as mandated in the Division Bench''s judgement of this Court.

A bare perusal of the order of the lower Court would demonstrate and exemplify that the lower Court did not address itself to all these aspects

and simply held as though the Court itself could compare the signatures. The lower Court should bear in mind that if it undertakes the job of an

expert in comparing the disputed handwritings/signature with the admitted ones, it should necessarily advert to the various characteristics in the

science concerned and finally it should arrive at a conclusion and when such a process is possible, the lower Court can refrain from sending

disputed handwritings/signatures to the expert, as otherwise, the lower Court should send the same to the expert for opinion.

In the result, the order dated 27.2.2008 passed I.A. No. 8 of 2008 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the lower Court for disposal

within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.