Disputed signatures can be compared with contemporaneous admitted signatures, and in complicated cases, documents should be sent for expert opinion.

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner/defendant to set aside the order dated 13.09.2007 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No-4, Coimbatore at Tirupur in I.A.No.1758 of 2007 in O.S.No.384 of 2005.

2. The defendant in O.S.No.384 of 2005 is the revision petitioner before this Court. The suit in O.S.No.384 of 2005 has been filed by the respondent/plaintiff for Specific Performance of the sale agreement dated 23.01.2004. Written statement has been filed by the petitioner/defendant and the suit is being contested. Pending suit, an application in I.A.No.1758 of 2007 has been filed by the petitioner/defendant to summon the Sub Registrar, Nallur to produce document No.3082/2003 which is the sale deed executed by the revision petitioner in favour of one Muthulakshmi on 310. 2003, which contained her admitted signature and thumb impression. The said application was resisted by the respondent/plaintiff by filing a counter. The trial Court by order dated 13.09.2007 dismissed that application. Aggrieved by the same, the above civil revision petition has been filed.

3. This Court on 112. 2007 ordered notice. The respondent/plaintiff has entered appearance through counsel.

4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent and I have also gone through the documents filed in support of their submissions.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that by dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/defendant for summoning the Sub Registrar, Nallur for producing the admitted document for the purpose of comparing the signature and thumb impression, an opportunity has been denied to the petitioner/defendant to establish her case and disprove the case of the plaintiff. Therefore, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant the order passed by the Court below suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff submits that the trial Court in paragraph 11 of the order dated 13.09.2007 has clearly stated that for effective/comparison of disputed signatures contained in a document, admitted documents containing contemporaneous signatures should be produced by the party seeking experts opinion. But the revision petitioner has not done so and hence according to the learned counsel, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff relied on two decisions in Central Bank of India Vs. Antony Hardware Mart, and another reported in 2006(3) CTC 39 and in Ammani Ammal Vs. Dhanalakshmi Bank Limited, and others reported in 2008(1) CTC 816.

7. The defendant in O.S.No.384 of 2005 is the revision petitioner. The case of the respondent/plaintiff in O.S.No.384 of 2005 is that she entered in to a written agreement of sale on 30.05.1990 with the revision petitioner to purchase the suit schedule properties for a sum Rs.21 lakhs. She paid a sum of Rs.4 lakhs as advance on 30.05.1990 itself and the balance was to be paid within 10 months. As there was no pathway or cart track to reach the property, the respondent herein filed a suit in O.S.No.323 of 1993 for the Cart Track rights against the revision petitioner. During the pendency of the suit, it was agreed that the revision petitioner should provide a cart Track to reach the suit property and the advance amount of Rs.4 lakhs need not be returned. But later on it was agreed that the respondent herself should make her own arrangement to provide a cart Track. Thereafter, another sale agreement dated 23.01.2004 was entered in to for the same sale consideration of Rs.22 lakhs on 23.01.2004 and on that day another sum of Rs.2 lakhs was paid to the revision petitioner and the balanc