The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the plaintiff to secure the ante litem motem signature of the defendant and the defendant to furnish his ante litem motem signatures for further expert opinion in cases involving disputed signatures.

Animadverting upon the order dated 09.01.2008 passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Tindivanam in I.A.No.1666 of 2006 in O.S.No.399 of 2006, this civil revision petition is focussed.

2. Heard both sides.

3. A "resume" of facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus:

The revision petitioner herein filed the suit in O.S.No.399 of 2006 based on the suit agreement to sell. During the pendency of the suit, I.A.No.1666 of 2006 was filed seeking to compare the signature of the first respondent in Ex.A1 with that of his vakalat and written statement with the help of handwriting expert. Ultimately, the trial Court dismissed it. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the present civil revision petition has been filed on various grounds.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner, placing reliance on the grounds of revision, would develop his argument to the effect that the lower Court misdirected itself and simply found that comparison of the disputed signature should not be made with the signatures made in the vakalat and written statement. He would also invite the attention of this Court to the decision of the Honble Apex Court reported in AIR 1979 SC 14 (State [Delhi Administration] vs. Pali Ram). An excerpt from it would run thus:

"34. Accordingly, we allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court, and restore the order dated May 20, 1972, of the Magistrate who may now repeat his direction to the accused to write down the sample writing. If the accused refuses to comply with the direction, it will be open to the Court concerned to draw under Section 114, Evidence Act, such adverse presumption as may be appropriate in the circumstances. If the accused complies with the direction, the Court will in accordance with its order dated May 20, 1972, send the writing so obtained, to a senior Government Expert of Questioned Documents, named by it, for comparison with the disputed writing and then examine him as a Court witness."

It is also the specific contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that earlier the Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in 2006 (3) LW 58 (Central Bank of India vs. Antony Hardware Mart) held as though the Court should not compare the disputed signature with the signature of the defendant in the vakalat and the written statement; but the said Judgment was passed without taking into consideration the decision of the Honble Apex Court cited supra. In fact, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would try to press into service the concept, judgment rendered "sub silentio". In this connection, I would like to extract the relevant portion of from Salmond jurisprudence in 12th edition at page No.155.

"..... The earlier case the court before whom the precedent is cited may be reluctant to hold that its predecessor failed to consider a point directly raised in the case before it (o), and this reluctance will be particularly pronounced if the sub silentio attack is levelled against not one case but a series(p).

We now turn to the wider question whether a precedent is deprived of its authoritative force by the fact that it was not argued, or not fully argued, by the losing party. If one looks at this question merely with the eye of common sense, the answer to it is clear. One of the chief reasons for the doctrine of precedent is that a matter that has once been fully argued and decided should not be allowed to be reopened. Where a judgment is given without the losing party having been represented, there is no assurance that all the relevant considerations have been brought to the notice of the Court and consequently the decision ought not to be regarded as possessing absolute authority, even if it does not fall within the sub silentio rule.

...........................................................................

..........................................................