The refusal to send documents for examination by an expert does not decide or adjudicate upon any right or obligation of a party.

1. Defendant in O.S.No.214 of 1993 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge’s Court, Tenkasi is the revision petitioner.

2. Suit filed by plaintiff was one for specific performance of contract on the basis of agreement for sale, alleged to have been executed by defendant. Defendant denied execution of agreement for sale. To prove that thumb impression in agreement for sale is not of defendant, an application was filed by defendant to send the same to get expert opinion, in I.A.No.718 of 1996. Some of the admitted signatures along with disputed thumb impression were also sent for getting expert opinion to Forensic Science Department, Government of Tamil Nadu. On 15.4.1998, all the papers were returned to Court with covering letter which reads thus,

“From

The Director and Chemical Examiner to Government,

Forensic Sciences Department,

Forensic House), Kamarajar Salai,

Madras-600 004.

To

The Principal Subordinate Judge,

Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District.

Reference 1. Your letter D.No.1862 dated 29.8.97.

2. Your letter D.No.606 dated 17.3.98 (O.S.No.214 of 1993) The documents received along with your letter 1st cited on 1.9.97 through P.Lakshmana Perumal, Assistant with seals intact and with your letter second cited on 20.3.98 by Registered post without any seals were carefully and thoroughly examined in this department but in the absence of enough standard materials it is not possible to express any reliable opinion on the red enclosed signatures stamped and marked Q1 to Q12 on a comparison with the red enclosed signatures similarly stamped and marked S1 to S36. The documents are returned herewith.”

3. Thereafter petitioner filed a memo again asking Court to send the documents for expert opinion. That memo was filed on 8.9.1998. Lower Court rejected that memo by following order.

“The above said documents already sent to the experts and obtained experts opinion. Therefore no necessity to send the said documents mentioned in the memo. Therefore this memo is closed.”

4. The above order was challenged in C.R.P.No.2472 of 1998 and by order dated 8.9.1998, learned Judge dismissed the revision petition at the admission stage itself with the following observations:

“...It is open to the Revision petitioner who is the defendant before the lower court, if he is so advised to file appropriate petition under the relevant provision of law to send the standard materials as required by the expert for his opinion by filling a fresh and separate application to that effect....”

5. On the basis of this observation petitioner filed I.A.No.702 of 1998 to send the documents for expert opinion. The same was seriously opposed by respondent and by the order dated 25.8.1998, lower court dismissed it. The same is challenged in this revision petition.

6. Notice was served to respondent and after hearing both sides, I do not find any merit in this revision petition.

7. Learned counsel for respondent even questioned the maintainability of the revision petition on the ground that it is not a “case decided” under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure.

8. On merits I do not find that lower court has committed any illegality so as to warrant interference in this case. All these documents i.e., various sale deeds, postal acknowledgment, vakalat, suit agreement and sample signatures were originally sent to expert. It is considering the same documents were returned on the ground stating that in the absence of enough standard materials it is not possible to give reliable opinion. After expert returned the document, a memo was also filed asking the court to a gain send the papers for expert opinion. When that was dismissed, a revision was taken to this Court and the same was admittedly dismissed even at the admission stage. Liberty was given to petitioner to move an application under relevant provision of law to send “standard materials as required by expert”. By filling this revision petition, petitioner, did not get any further material and he wan