The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish the authenticity of the promissory note, and timely filing of applications for examination of documents by handwriting experts is crucial.

(Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 20.7.2006 made in I.A.No.477 of 2005 in O.S.No.171 of 2002 on the file of the Sub Court, Dharapuram.)

Aggrieved over fair and decreetal order dated 20.7.2006 made in I.A.No.477 of 2005 in O.S.No.171 of 2002 on the file of the Sub Court, Dharapuram, this civil revision petition is filed.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

The petitioner is the plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S.No.171 of 2002 for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,35,434/- based on a promissory note said to have been executed by the respondent/defendant. Initially the suit was decreed exparte on 10.06.2004. Subsequently the petitioner has initiated execution proceedings in E.P.No.71 of 2004. The petitioner has also filed I.A.No.531 of 2002 for attachment of the property but the defendant has produced security. The said application was closed accepting the security furnished by the respondent/defendant. During the execution proceedings, the petitioner has filed a petition to set aside the exparte decree and the same was allowed thereafter the defendant/respondent has also filed I.A.No.477 of 2005 to send the promissory note for expert opinion on the ground that the signature found in the said promissory note does not belong to him and wanted to compare the said signature with the signature found in the written statement as well as in the vakalath. The learned Subordinate Judge allowed the same.

3. Aggrieved over the said order this civil revision petition is filed.

4. Mr.N.Manokaran, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would contend that it is for the plaintiff to prove that the disputed promissory note was executed by the defendant and the plaintiff is always willing and ready to prove the same by letting in oral and documentary evidence. According to him, the defendant has filed an application belatedly three years after the filing of the suit. He would further contend that a person's signature may in course of time vary.

5. Per contra, Mrs.Rita Chandrasekaran, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that the opinion of the expert would clinch the issue whether the promissory note is genuine or forged.

6. I gave anxious consideration on the rival contentions made by both sides. Along with the application, the respondent/defendant has not produced any of his signature in any one of the document of the relevant period except the letter said to have been written in the year 2000. A person's signature may change or vary with the passage of time and the signature of the person concerned involved in the case on hand is not an exception to this common phenomenon. Apart from that, burden is on the plaintiff to prove that the alleged promissory note was executed by the defendant. It is for him to take necessary steps, if signature found in the promissory note is denied by the defendant. If he fails to take necessary steps to prove either by oral or documentary or expert opinion he will be a sufferer.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has pressed into service a judgment of a Division Bench of this court reported in 2006 (3) CTC 39 (Central Bank of India v. Antony Hardware Mart, wherein this court has held as follows:

"9. At the outset, we want to point out that the Trial court has committed an error in comparing the signatures in Ex.A-2 and Ex.A-5 with the admitted signature of the defendant in the Vakalath and written statement. In the judgment in Somasundaram v. Palani, 1999 (3) CTC 156, this court has held as follows:

"Even though the Court may have the power to compare the signatures, there must be some admitted signature of the defendant, on the basis of which a comparison will have to be made. In this case, a comparison has been made on the basis of signatures affixed by defendant in the vakalath and written statement, which are documents that have come into existence after the di