Madras High Court
Selvi vs Kulothungan on 10 March, 2025
CRP NO.137 3 OF 202 3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ORDER RESERVED ON : 26 / 11 / 2024
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 10 / 03 / 2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SAKTHIVEL
CRP NO.1373 OF 2023
AND
CMP NO.9207 OF 2023
Selvi
S/o.Kathirvel
No.31, Bramanar Street,
Kottucherry Commune, Karaikal. ... Petitioner /
Petitioner /
Defendant
Versus
Kulothungan
S/o.Krishnamoorthy
No.34, Pulain Thoppu,
Varichikudy, Kottacherry Commune,
Karaikal Town and Munsif. ... Respondent /
Respondent /
Plaintiff
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order and decretal order
dated December 13, 2022 made in I.A.No.5 of 2022 in O.S.No.23 of 2019
by the learned Additional District Judge, Karaikal.
For Petitioner : Mr.Ramkumar Natarajan
for Mr.Adarsh Subramanian
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 08:58:11 pm ) Page No.1 of 9
CRP NO.137 3 OF 202 3
For Respondent : Mr.S.P.Vijayaraghavan
---
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated
December 13, 2022, passed in I.A.No.5 of 2022 in O.S.No.23 of 2019 by
the 'learned Additional District Judge, Karaikal' [in short 'Trial Court'].
2. The case of the respondent/plaintiff is that the
petitioner/defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 5,30,000/- from the plaintiff
and executed a Promissory Note on March 10, 2017, agreeing to repay the
amount on demand with interest at 12% per annum. On March 21, 2019,
the plaintiff sent a demand notice to the defendant, calling upon her to
repay the entire amount of principal and interest due under the Promissory
Note. The defendant duly acknowledged the notice on March 25, 2019.
However, the defendant has neither come forward to pay any amount nor
issued any reply. Consequently, the plaintiff has filed a Suit for the
recovery of money.
3. The petitioner/defendant filed a written statement
denying the allegations made in the plaint. It is stated in the written
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 08:58:11 pm ) Page No.2 of 9
statement that the plaintiff forged the defendant's signature and filed a
fraudulent claim against her. The defendant claims that she did not execute
the alleged Promissory Note dated March 10, 2017, and that she did not
borrow any amount from the plaintiff at any point in time. Therefore, the
defendant prayed to dismiss the Suit.
4. In the meantime, the defendant filed I.A. No. 4 of 2021
praying to send the promissory note for expert opinion to compare the
signature found in the Suit promissory note with the Trust Deed dated July
08, 2019. The Trial Court observed that signatures should be compared
with those from a contemporaneous period to the alleged Promissory Note
dated March 10, 2017 and that the Trust Deed was executed on July 8,
2019 i.e., after institution of the Suit, and the signature found therein is not
a contemporaneous one. Accordingly, the Trial Court dismissed the
Interlocutory Application on December 13, 2022, granting liberty to file
any document predating Ex-A.1 – Suit Promissory Note.
5. Meanwhile, the defendant filed another Interlocutory
Application in I.A. No.5 of 2022 in O.S.No.23 of 2019, seeking
appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to take the documents, namely
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 08:58:11 pm ) Page No.3 of 9
Ex-A.1 – Suit Promissory Note dated March 10, 2017 and the Sale Deed
dated March 11, 2015, for scientific investigation and signature
comparison. However, the Trial Court dismissed I.A. No. 5 of 2022 on
December 13, 2022, holding that the application was merely a repetition of
the earlier request and that the documents sought for comparison were not
contemporaneous, making the scientific examination unnecessary and
serving no fruitful service.
6. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner/defendant has filed the
present Civil Revision Petition seeking to set aside the order passed in I.A.
No. 5 of 2022 in O.S. No. 23 of 2019.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
Trial Court, without properly considering the nature of the document,
dismissed the Interlocutory Application. The Trial Court observed that the
petitioner should have furnished documents such as a passport and other
identification papers for signature comparison. However, since the
passport and PAN Card were obtained in the year 2010, the signatures on
those documents are not contemporaneous with the signature on the
Promissory Note. Therefore, comparing the signature on the Promissory
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 08:58:11 pm ) Page No.4 of 9
Note with those on the passport and PAN Card may not be relevant. The
learned counsel further argued that the signature on the Sale Deed dated
March 11, 2015, is contemporaneous in nature and therefore, there is no
impediment for sending it for expert opinion. Hence, the learned counsel
contended that the Trial Court erred in dismissing the Interlocutory
Application. Accordingly, he prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition.
8. Per contra, Mr.S.P.Vijayaraghavan, learned Counsel
appearing for the respondent/plaintiff would argue that the sale deed dated
March 11, 2015 was not a contemporaneous document. Hence, no useful
purpose would be served if it is sent for expert opinion. He relied on the
Hon'ble High Court of Hyderabad’s Judgment in Bande Siva Shankara
Srinivasa Prasad v. Ravi Surya Prakash Babu and Ors., reported in 2015
SCC Online Hyderabad, 467, wherein it has been held in Paragraph No.12
as follows:-
“a) Are contemporaneous
handwritings/signatures always or normally necessary
for comparison and report.
`Comment: Document Experts prefer to have
writings/signatures that are contemporaneous which are
as close to the document in question and where possible
of a similar nature.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 08:58:11 pm ) Page No.5 of 9
It is not always necessary to have the
contemporaneous writing for comparison purpose.
However, handwritings/signatures are normally
necessary for better evaluation of the writing habits and
establish the range of natural variation of the writer
during the period.
`b) What is the meaning of contemporaneous, and
what tis the measure of contemporaneity.
Comment: Contemporaneous means occurrence
at same period of time. No specific measure could be
assigned to the element of contemporaneity. On of the
famous authors in the field of examination of
documents. Ordway Hilton, in his famous book
Scientific Examination of Questioned Documents, states
that material written two or three years before or after
the disputed writing serve as satisfactory standards and
the same is enunciated in page 11 of the Annexure
enclosed.”
8.1. Accordingly, he prayed to dismiss the above Civil Revision
Petition.
9. This Court has carefully examined both sides’ submissions
and perused the records.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 08:58:11 pm ) Page No.6 of 9
10. In the earlier Interlocutory Application in I.A.No. 4 of 2022,
the Trust Deed sought to be sent for expert opinion was executed after
institution of the Suit and hence it is not a contemporaneous one. The
petitioner's Passport and PAN Card were issued around the year 2010 and
are also not contemporaneous with the Suit Promissory Note and cannot be
considered for comparison. However, the sale deed dated March 11, 2015
was registered prior to the suit promissory note. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, and in the interest of justice, this Court is of the
view that the sale deed dated March 11, 2015 has to be sent to the expert
opinion for comparison of signature with that found in the Suit promissory
note. The plaintiff would not be prejudiced by this Order since the expert
opinion is a mere opinion and it needs further corroboration. There is no
quarrel with the case law relied on by the learned Counsel for the
respondent / plaintiff.
11. Accordingly, the Order dated December 13, 2022, passed in
I.A. No. 5 of 2022 in O.S. No.23 of 2019 by the learned Additional District
Judge, Karaikal, is set aside, and the Civil Revision Petition is allowed.
The Trial Court is directed to send the Sale Deed dated March 11, 2015
along with the Promissory Note dated March 10, 2017, for expert opinion.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 08:58:11 pm ) Page No.7 of 9
In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order
as to costs. Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is
closed.
10 / 03 / 2025
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
Speaking Order : Yes / No
TK
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 08:58:11 pm ) Page No.8 of 9
R. SAKTHIVEL, J.
TK
To
The Additional District Judge
Karaikal.
PRE-DELIVERY ORDER MADE IN
CRP NO.1373 OF 2023
10 / 03 / 2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 08:58:11 pm ) Page No.9 of 9
