1. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred challenging the order and decreetal order dated 18.7.2011 passed in C.M.P.No.817 of 2011 in A.S.No.367 of 2010 on the file of the V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. Heard Mrs.V.Yamunadevi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. Defendant is the revision petitioner. The suit O.S.No.3522 of 2007 was filed on 14.6.2007 for recovery of money lent on a promissory note. In the trial Court, the respondent/plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-3 as follows:-

Ex.A-1 is the promissory note dated 1.4.2006,

Ex.A-2 is the Advocate notice issued by the plaintiffs counsel to the defendant and

Ex.A-3 is the postal acknowledgment card of the defendant.

On behalf of the revision petitioner/defendant, the defendant was examined as D.W.1 and Exs.B-1 to B-7 were marked and they are not relevant for the present issue. At the instance of the plaintiff, the court below examined one Mrs.Krishnakumari, Assistant of

E.S.I. Hospital and marked Ex.X-1 series (four in number), viz., attendance register at the office of the employer of the revision petitioner/defendant signed by her in English; Leave Letter of the revision petitioner/defendant signed in Tamil, Service Records extract showing the signature of the revision petitioner/defendant signed in English and other relevant documents containing the signature of the revision petitioner/defendant

4. No expert evidence was let in by the respondent/plaintiff, except summoning the above documents relating to the signature of the revision petitioner/defendant. The trial Court dismissed the suit inter alia stating that the revision petitioner/defendant had specifically denied the signature. Therefore, the plaintiff should have filed an application to summon the handwriting expert for opinion which has not been done. The defendant was in the habit of signing both in English and in Tamil. Therefore, the plaintiff has to prove his case. On this and on other grounds, the suit was dismissed.

5. An appeal in A.S.No.367 of 2011 has been filed in August, 2010 and in June 2011 plaintiff filed C.M.P.No.817 of 2011 to appoint an Advocate Commissioner and to take the service records and other documents marked as Ex.X-1 series and the disputed signature in Ex.A-1 to the Forensic Department for comparison and to verify the signature. This application was filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act read with Order 26 Rule 1 and Section 151 CPC. A counter has been filed by the revision petitioner-defendant. The appellate court allowed the application holding that the application is filed for the first time. Challenging the same, present revision petition has been filed.

6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant raised the following objections:-

(1) The application I.A.No.817 of 2011 filed for verification of the disputed suit document with other admitted signatures by the forensic expert is an afterthought having failed in the suit.

(2) It is sufficient for the court to compare and come to the conclusion with regard to the disputed signature with the admitted signature. Therefore, it is not necessary to refer the matter to handwriting expert.

(3) Having sent for official records, the respondent/plaintiff could have filed an application to summon the handwriting expert to let in evidence as well before the trial court which was not done.

7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant relied upon the following decisions:-

(1) K.R.Mohan Reddy - vs. - Net Work INC. reported in (2008) 1 MLJ 1253 (SC),

(2) Basayya I. Mathad - vs. - Rudrayya S.Mathad (SC) reported in 2008(1) CTC 537 and

(3) R.Elango - vs. - K.Dhanasekaran reported in (2008) 8 MLJ 299, wherein this court held in para 9 as follows:-

“(9.) A handwriting expert opinion is of weak value but it shall be considered along with all other relevant facts and materials. An expert