The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to appoint a commissioner for obtaining the opinion evidence of the handwriting expert under Sec.73 of the Indian Evidence Act in cases where expert opinion is necessary for determining the authenticity of signatures.

(Civil Revision Petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the Order of the Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram dated 21.06.2004 in I.A.No.140 of 2004 in O.S.No.7 of 2004, as stated therein.)

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the Order of the Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram dated 21.06.2004 in I.A.No.140 of 2004 in O.S.No.7 of 2004, dismissing the Application filed by the Revision Petitioner / Defendant to send the disputed Suit Promissory Note for obtaining opinion of the Hand-writing Expert. The Defendant in O.S.No.7 of 2004 is the Revision Petitioner.

2. C.M.P.No.43 of 2004 and V.C.M.P.No.38 of 2005 came up for hearing before this Court. By consent of both the parties, the main Civil Revision Petition itself was taken up for final hearing and disposal.

3. The Respondent / Plaintiff has filed the Suit in O.S.No.7 of 2004 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Padmanabhapuram based on a Promissory Note. Case of the Plaintiff is that the Defendant (who is the Son of his Paternal Uncle) has borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from the Plaintiff in January 1998 agreeing to repay the same within one month. The Defendant was delaying the payment. Thereafter, the Defendant had written a Letter to the Plaintiff on 27.08.1998 agreeing to discharge his liability with interest. Even thereafter, there was delay in repayment of the amount. To discharge his liability, the Defendant had executed the Suit Promissory Note on 04.06.2001 in favour of the Plaintiff. Since the Defendant is close relative, the Plaintiff has waived the Interest upto the date of Execution of the Promissory Note. Since the Defendant was delaying the payment, after issuing the Notice of Demand on 05.01.2004, the Plaintiff has filed the Suit on the same day - 05.01.2004. The Suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,43,000/-.

4. Denying borrowal of the amount from the Plaintiff, the Defendant has filed Written Statement interalia contending that the Suit Promissory Note is a forged one. According to the Revision Petitioner / Defendant, the Plaintiff negotiated with the Defendant to sell the Property described as Third Item in the Schedule to the Attachment Before Judgment Petition in I.A.No.7 of 2004 to a proposed purchaser and requested the Defendant to execute the General Power of Attorney in his favour, so as to enable the Plaintiff to execute the Sale Deed according to his wishes. Since the Defendant has denied the request of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff has created fraudulent Promissory Note by forging the Signature of the Defendant. Along with the Written Statement, the Defendant has filed an Application in I.A.No.140 of 2004 under Order XXVI Rule 10(A) C.P.C and Sec.73 of the Indian Evidence Act r/w Sec.151 C.P.C., praying the Court to issue a Commission to Handwriting Expert for the purpose of comparison of disputed signature in the Suit Promissory Note with the admitted signature. In the Petition, the Defendant has enumerated number of documents including Vakalat, Written Statement and his specimen signatures and other documents (said to be containing his admitted signatures) for sending it to the opinion of the Expert for comparison with the disputed signature found in the Suit Promissory Note.

5. The Application filed by the Revision Petitioner / Defendant was strongly resisted by the Respondent / Plaintiff on the ground that the Application is filed only to escape from his liability. It was further contended that the Court itself can compare the admitted signature and the disputed signature, exercising the power under Sec.73 of the Indian Evidence Act.

6. Upon consideration of the contention of both sides, learned Subordinate Judge has dismissed the Application finding that the Court itself has got power and authority to compare the disputed signature with that of the admitted signature under Sec.73 of the Indian Evidence Act and hence, there is no necessity for sending the Suit Promissory Note to the