ORDER: Defendants in O.S.No.81 of 1998 on the file of District Munsif Court, Aruppukottai, have preferred this revision petition aggrieved against the orders passed in I.A.No.319 of 2001, dated 7.6.2001.

2. The case in brief is as follows:

The revision petitioners/defendants filed a petition under O.26, Rule 10-A and Sec.151 of Civil Procedure Code to send Exs.B-2 and B-23 with the admitted signatures of the first respondent for comparison to the Government handwriting expert at Madras through an Advocate Commissioner. These two documents came into existence on 12.5.1997 and the signatures in the documents have been disputed by the first respondent. The respondents opposed the application that Ex.B-23 is attested by a Notary Public and the due execution of the document can be proved by examining the Notary Public and, as such, there is no necessity to send the documents for comparison. Now the evidence is in the closing stage and the present application has been filed only to delay the proceedings. Even assuming that the opinion is received from the handwriting expert, it is not a conclusive one under Sec.45 of the Evidence Act.

3. The learned District Munsif after hearing the parties, dismissed the application and aggrieved against his, the present revision is filed.

4. Heard, the learned counsel of both sides.

5. The point that arises for consideration is whether the order passed by the Court below is proper and correct?

6.Point: The plaintiffs filed O.S.No.81 of 1998 on the file of District Munsif Court, Aruppukottai for a declaration that the suit property belong to the plaintiffs and the first defendant and for permanent injunction and accounting. The suit was resisted by the defendants and they relied upon two documents dated 12.5.1997 marked as Exs.B-2 and B-23 during the time of trial. It is pertinent to state that these documents have been referred to even in the written statement filed by the defendants. The evidence in the case has already been commenced and these two documents have been marked on the side of the defendants. It appears that these two documents were also shown to the first respondent during the cross-examination and she had denied the signature. It is only under such circumstance, the defendants have filed the present application to send these documents through an Advocate Commissioner to the Government handwriting expert fro the purpose of comparison with the admitted signatures.

7. Perusal of the order passed by the Court below indicates that these documents can be proved through evidence. No doubt, one of the documents dated 12.5.1997 came into existence in the presence of a Notary Public. By examining the Notary Public and also by producing the entries in the relevant register. Ex.B-23 can be proved. The reasoning given by the Court below cannot be accepted. No doubt, the original documents cannot be sent to the handwriting expert directly and only photo copies can be sent for the purpose of comparison.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents also relied on the decision reported in T.A.Narasimhan v. Narayana Chettiar and another, (1968)2 M.L.J. 48, as follows:

“When the defendant in a civil suit applies to the Court for obtaining the opinion of a named handwriting expert to prove the genuineness of certain disputed documents to support his case, the Court cannot compel him to choose or accept a handwriting expert of the choice of the plaintiff for this purpose. The handwriting expert is after all a witness of a particular party and a party cannot be compelled to choose a witness according to the dictation of the opposite party.

The practice of sending original documents in the custody of Court to handwriting experts is a highly objectional and a very bad procedure. Under no circumstances should a Court permit or allow the documents to go out of its custody, as such an evil practice is attendant with various risks. The proper procedure in such cases would be only to permit the handwriting expert to inspect t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document