The main legal point established in the judgment is the objectionable practice of filing applications for examination of documents by handwriting experts at a late stage, the shift of onus to the plaintiff to prove the genuineness of the document when the signature is disputed by the defendant, and the proper procedure to be followed in the examination of documents by handwriting experts under Sec.45 of the Indian Evidence Act.

(Revision Petition filed against the order dated 1.11.2004, passed in I.A.No.1531/2004 in O.S.No.275/2004, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruppur.)

This Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 1.11.2004, passed in I.A.No.1531/2004 in O.S.No.275/2004, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruppur.

2. The defendant in the suit is the Revision Petitioner.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

4. Plaintiff filed O.S.No.233/1998 for specific performance of the sale agreement entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant on 15.2.1994. The defendant filed written statement on 10.6.1999 wherein in para 3 it was specifically stated that the alleged sale agreement dated 15.2.94 is a forged document and fabricated by the plaintiff to grab the defendant's property and also for unlawful gain and the defendant stoutly denied his signature in the sale agreement dated 15.2.94.

5. Thereafter defendant filed I.A.No.1531/2004 under Sec.45 of the Indian Evidence Act to direct the handwriting and finger print expert described in the petition namely, handwriting finger print expert, Forensic Sciences Department, Govt. of Tamil Nadu, Chennai.4 to inspect suit agreement in the court premises itself in the presence of some responsible court official and direct the expert to take photographs of the suit agreement in the presence of the responsible officer of the court and to compare the disputed signatures in the suit agreement dated 15.2.1994 with admitted signature of the defendant and direct the expert to file a detailed report in this regard. By order dated 1.11.2004, the trial court dismissed the I.A.No.1531/2004 and aggrieved by the same the above Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the defendant/Revision Petitioner and the learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent. I have also gone through the documents filed and the judgments referred to by them in support of their submissions.

7. Learned counsel for the defendant/revision petitioner vehemently contended that the trial court erred in law and facts to dismiss the I.A.No.1531/2004 and for this contention he relied on the following judgments:-

(1) 1968(II) .L.J. 48 (Narasimhan v. Narayana Chettiar)

(2) 1976(I) M.L.J. 11 (Doraiswamy Gounder v. parayammal

(3) 84 L.W. 348 (Ramaswamy Konar v. Karuppa Konar)

(4) 1996(I) L.W. 255 (Utham Prabhat Industries, etc. v. P.Subramaniam, etc.)

(5) 97 L.W. 222 (J.S.-Summary of Cases (Extracts) (Ban of India v. C.T.Rajagopalan)

(6) 1998(III) CTC 139 (Krishtama Naidu, K. v. M.Govindan)

(7) 1998(III) CTC 140 (Irulappan v. Meenakshisundaram)

(8) 1998(III) CTC 650 (Kuppanna Gounder v. R.Sivakami)

(9)AIR 2001 Ori. 185 (Bhagirati Sahu v. Akapatti Bhaskar Patra)

(10) 2003(3) L.W. 649 (Palaniammal & others v. Palaniswami & others)

(11) 2004(4) CTC 699 (Devaraju Padayachi v. Sivasankara Padayachi)

(12) 2005(2) CTC 445 (Vijayakumar, S.N. v. S.R.Velusamy)

(13) 2005(3) CTC 286 (Chinnappan v. Chinnammal)

(14) 2005(3) CTC 12 (P.Sood & Co. v. Peerchand Misrimalji Bhansali).

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent submitted that none of the judgments are relevant to the point at issue in the I.A.No.1531/2004 and prayed for dismissal of Revision Petition. He further supported the trial court's order that the I.A.No.1531/2004 was filed belatedly, that too without containing the list of documents, admitting the signature of the defendant. He also submitted that it is not for the defendant to take out an application under Sec.45 of the Indian Evidence Act as the onus is only on the plaintiff to prove that the signature found in the agreement of sale is the signature of the defendant.

9. First let me consider the decisions relied on by the defendant/revision petitioner.

(1) In 1968(II) M.L.J. 48 (cited supra), this court held as follows:-

"Repeated instances have come to the notice of this Court when app