M. Karunanidhi vs Seethalakshmi

G. Rajasuria, J.—Animadverting upon the order dated 22.2.2008 passed in I.A. No. 219 of 2008 in O.S. No. 111 of 2006 by the District

Munsif, Kangkeyam, Erode District, this revision petition is filed.

The epitome and short and long of the facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus:

The respondent filed the suit O.S. No. 111 of 2006 for recovery of money, based on pro-note. The defendant, during the pendency of the suit,

filed I.A. No. 219 of 2008 seeking the relief of forwarding the photo copy of the impugned document along with the admitted signatures of the

defendant to the expert for comparison and report. However, the lower Court dismissed it. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order,

this revision petition is focussed on various grounds:

The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant would develop his argument, placing reliance on the grounds of revision, to the effect

that it is a peculiar case in which the pro-note is purported to bear the signature of the petitioner/defendant as well as the left thumb impression; the

petitioner/defendant himself, in order to prove the falsity of the respondent/plaintiff''s case, had come forward with that I.A. for referring the

impugned signature to the Forensic expert, but the trial Court unfortunately rejected such a prayer.

Whereas, the learned Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would submit that the onus of proof is on the plaintiff to prove the case and it is not for

the petitioner/defendant to seek for such relief.

At this juncture, I am of the opinion that even though the burden of proof is on the respondent/plaintiff to prove the case, the

petitioner/defendant, in order to buttress and fortify his stand, can ask for sending the impugned document for comparison. However, there are

certain well settled guidelines to be followed. In this case, both the purported signature as well as the purported left thumb impression of the

petitioner/defendant are found in the impugned pro-note and in such a case it is just and proper for the Court to send the impugned signature and

the left thumb impression for comparison, so as to compare them with the anti litum motem signature of the petitioner/defendant and also with the

sample left thumb impression of the petitioner/defendant concerned. Hence, at the first instance, the petitioner/defendant shall secure before the

Court his own one or two anti motum litem signatures before the Court and also furnish his left thumb impression; whereupon, the lower Court shall

appoint an Advocate Commissioner for the following purpose.

(a) To carry the relevant documents in connection with this case personally in a sealed cover;

(b) and produce the same before the Forensic Expert;

(c) leave it in his custody under his acknowledgment for as many days as the Forensic Expert may require;

(d) collect the record from the Forensic Expert on the day as may be fixed by him;

(e) bring it back and lodge it with the Court.

The Forensic Expert is directed to complete the examination in any event, within 48 hours after the depositing of the same by the Advocate

Commissioner with him.

Accordingly, the civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.