Madras High Court
Vasantha (Died) vs Ramesh on 6 December, 2023
C.R.P(MD)No.106 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 06.12.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
C.R.P(MD)No.106 of 2018
and
C.M.P(MD)No.473 of 2018
Vasantha (Died)
2.Manjamatha
(2nd petitioner is brought on record as
LR of the deceased sole petitioner vide
Court order dated 12.07.2023)
... Petitioner /Petitioner/1st Defendant
.vs.
1.Ramesh
2.G.K.Suresh
...Respondents/ Respondents/ Plaintiffs
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
against the judgment and decreetal order in I.A.No.162 of 2016 in O.S.No.164 of
2015, dated 15.04.2016 on the file of the 5th Additional District Court, Madurai.
For Petitioner :Mr.P.Santhana Krishnan
For R1 & R2 :Mr.PT.S.Narendravasan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/5
C.R.P(MD)No.106 of 2018
ORDER
*******
The first defendant in the suit is the revision petitioner. Before the trial Court,
the first defendant has filed I.A.No.162 of 2016 seeking to compare the disputed
signatures found in the documents 2,9,13 and 14 with items 1,5 & 6 in the plaint
index, vakalat and written statement. The said application was resisted by the
respondents/plaintiffs and the trial Court dismissed the said application on the
ground that the documents that are containing the admitted signatures are not
contemporaneous documents and further, the signature in the vakalat and the
written statement cannot be compared with the disputed documents. Aggrieved by
the said order, the present revision has been filed by the first defendant.
2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner as
well as the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs.
3. Insofar as the claim of the plaintiffs, it is seen from the plaint, that the
plaintiffs have sought for recovery of money, due from the defendants on the
strength of a document executed and styled as Debt Confirmation Deed, dated
14.03.2011. In the written statement filed by the first defendant, she has
categorically denied the execution of the said document and that apart, the first
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
defendant has stated that she never borrowed any money from the plaintiffs.
4. The suit is in a part-heard stage and the plaintiffs' side evidence has been
concluded and the defendants are in the box. In view of the specific denial of the
execution of the alleged Debt Confirmation Deed, dated 14.03.2011, the trial Court
ought to have entertained the application and allowed the request of the
petitioner/first defendant seeking comparison of signature. However, at the same
time, it is to be noted that the prayer sought for in the said interlocutory application
was seeking to compare the suit documents Nos.1,5 & 6 along with vakalat and
written statement with the disputed signature found in suit document Nos.2,9,13 &
14. The dispute revolves around the Debt Confirmation Deed, dated 14.03.2011
which is listed as suit document No.13. The suit document No.1 is the sale deed
which is of the year 1992 and the same cannot be said to be a contemporaneous
document. However, I find that the documents Nos.5 & 6 are dated 17.08.2008 and
18.08.2009. Though they are unregistered notarized Gift Settlement Deeds executed
in favour of the defendants 2 & 3, they have been filed as documents by the
plaintiffs themselves. Therefore, the signature of the petitioner / first defendant in
these documents being nearer in point of time to the Debt Confirmation Deed can be
compared, however, the request in respect of other documents stands rejected. The
trial Court shall appoint an Advocate Commissioner to take the suit document No.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
13, namely, Debt Confirmation Deed, dated 14.03.2011, the disputed signature and
have the same compared with the sit documents 5 & 6, which are Gift Settlement
Deeds dated 17.08.2009 and 18.08.2009 respectively, which are admitted signatures
of the petitioner / first defendant and take the same to the handwriting Forensic
Expert, who shall gave a report in a sealed cover and the Advocate Commissioner
shall file the said sealed cover containing the report of the expert to the Court. This
exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks.
5. Taking into consideration that the suit is in a part-heard stage and is of the
year 2015, the trial Court shall make every endeavour to dispose of the suit within a
period of three months from the date of receipt of the report of the handwriting
expert.
6. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(RTI)
// True Copy //
08/12/2023
Sub Assistant Registrar(CS )
AM
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
The 5th Additional District Court, Madurai.
Copy to
The Section Officer, V.R Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. ( 2 Copies)
+1 CC to M/s.PT.S.NARENDRAVASAN, Advocate ( SR-55044[F] dated 06/12/2023
)
+1 CC to M/s.P.SANTHANA KRISHNAN, Advocate ( SR-55436[F] dated
07/12/2023 )
06.12.2023
AMS/08.12.2023 5P 6C
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
