Madras High Court
Revision vs M.Karunanithi on 4 March, 2021
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Date :04.03.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
CRP(NPD)(MD)Nos.352 & 353 of 2021
G.Thiyagarajan ...
Revision Petitioner in both CRPs
Vs
M.Karunanithi ...
Respondent in both CRPs
PRAYER: Both Civil Revision Petitions have been filed
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
against the orders, dated 21.01.2020 made in I.A.Nos.
263 & 264 of 2019 in O.S.No.121 of 2013 on the file
of the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court,
Orathanadu.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Gnanasekaran
*****
O R D E R
Both Civil Revision Petitions have been
filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
against the order, dated 21.01.2020 made in I.A.Nos.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
263 & 264 of 2019 in O.S.No.121 of 2013 on the file
of the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court,
Orathanadu.
2. The petitioner would aver among other
things that the petitioner herein is the plaintiff in
the afore-said O.S.No.121 of 2013, which was filed
for a specific performance of sale agreement. After
the evidence was closed on both sides, but before
argument, the petitioner filed I.A.No.263 of 2019
praying for re-opening the case and I.A.No.264 of
2019 was filed for expert opinion by comparing the
disputed signatures. Both the applications were
dismissed by the Court below vide its order dated
21.01.2020.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner
would contend that the Court below dismissed the
applications preferred by the petitioner mainly on
the ground that he wanted to compare the disputed
signatures of the defendant after a quite long time.
It is the submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that time is not a bar to compare the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
disputed signatures because the Full Bench of the
High Court of Telungana in the case of 'Bande Siva
Shankara Srinvasa Prasad Vs Ravi Surya Prakash and
others made in CRP NOS.1500 of 2010 has held that the
Court is not barred from sending the disputed hand
writing signatures for comparison to an expert mainly
because the time gap between the admitted
handwriting/signature and the disputed
handwriting/signature is long. It has further held
that it would ultimately be for the expert concerned
to voice his conclusion as to whether the disputed
handwriting/signature and the admitted
handwriting/signature are capable of comparison for a
viable expert opinion. By saying so, he prays for
setting aside the order of the Court below and to
allow the Civil Revision Petitions.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and perused the materials available on
record.
5. A perusal of the judgment would throw
light upon to this Court that the date of sale
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
agreement is 07.10.1993 and the year of the vakalat
nama filed by the defendant's is of the year 2014 and
therefore, the Court below has rightly held that it
is not possible to compare the disputed signature of
the defendant in the sale agreement with the
signature available in the vakalat; Furthermore, the
disputed signature of the defendant in the sale
agreement cannot be compared with the signature of
the defendant as witness in the sale deed executed by
the brother of the defendant in favour of the
plaintiff, because the plaintiff has produced only
copy of the sale deed and not the original deed. By
citing the practical reason also, the Court refused
to accede the request of the petitioner.
5.1. That apart, the Court itself can
compare the signatures of the parties under Section
73 of the Indian Evidence Act and the plaintiff has
not even stated in the petition why he has not filed
the petition for expert opinion till the case came up
for enquiry and the examination was over and the
written argument on the defendant's side was filed
and therefore, in the interest of justice, the court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
below rightly dismissed the applications preferred by
the petitioner in which no infirmity could be found.
The intention of the petitioner is just to drag on
the proceedings endlessly.
5.2. The petitioner made an attempt to
convince this Court that the judgment cited supra is
squarely applicable to the case on hand. Even in
that judgment relied upon by the petitioner, the Full
Bench of that Court has observed that it is
essentially within the judicious discretion of the
Court, depending on the individual facts and
circumstances of the case before it, to seek or not
to seek expert opinion as to the comparison of the
disputed handwriting/signature with the admitted
handwriting/ signature under Section 45 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872. The petitioner failed to note the
said aspect. Further, the Court must however
endeavour to impress upon the petitioning party that
comparison of disputed handwritings/signatures with
admitted handwritings/signatures, separated by a time
lag of 2 to 3 years, would be desirable so as to
facilitate expert comparison in accordance with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
satisfactory standards. Such is not the situation in
the case on hand.
6. In view of the foregoing reasons, the
Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, there
will be no order as to costs.
04.03.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
bala
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
To
The District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court,
Orathanadu.
Copy to:-
The Section Officer,
V.R.Records,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
J.NISHA BANU, J
bala
CRP(NPD)(MD)Nos.352 & 353 of 2021
04.03.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
