The main legal point established is the admissibility of comparing signatures in a disputed document with the admitted signatures of the plaintiff and the need for contemporaneous documents for comparison.

1. The defendant in O.S.No.80 of 2005 on the file of the Learned 1st Additional Subordinate Judge, Villupuram., is the revision petitioner. The respondent/plaintiff has filed the above suit for recovery of Rs.1,71,500/- from the revision petitioner on the basis of a mortgage deed executed by the defendant/revision petitioner. The defendant/revision petitioner filed a statement stating that the interest for a period from 15.09.1999 to 02.03.2004 at the rate of 36% p.a. was calculated on Rs.1,00,000/- and that was paid and receipt was also issued by the plaintiff to that effect on 02.03.2004. But the defendant, did not file the said document along with the written statement but later, filed an application to receive the document and that was allowed. During the trial, the plaintiff denied the execution of the document dated 02.03.2004, alleged to have been executed by him in favour of the defendant/revision petitioner and therefore, the defendant filed an application in I.A.No.504 of 2006 in O.S.No.80 of 2005 for comparing the signature of Ex.B1 viz., the receipt with admitted documents of the plaintiff and that petition was allowed by the Lower Court and the Lower Court passed the following order " TAMIL"

2. Therefore, it is seen from the Lower Court order that the parties are directed to produce the contemporaneous document for a comparison. Later on, the defendant filed an application in I.A.No.288 of 2008 stating that the she is not able to get the contemporaneous document executed by the plaintiff and therefore, the signature in Ex.B1, which is disputed by the plaintiff could be compared with the admitted signature of the plaintiff, in the plaint as well as in the vakalat, that application was dismissed by the Lower Court, holding that in I.A.No.504 of 2006, an opportunity was given to the defendant to produce the signature of the plaintiffs contemporaneous document dated 02.03.2004 and in that application, the defendant did not pray for comparing the signature of the plaintiff found in the vakalat or in the plaint with that of the Ex.B1 and therefore, in I.A.No.504 of 2006 no order has been passed to compare the signature of the plaintiff found in vakalat and in the plaint with the disputed signature found in Ex.B1., and if the revision petitioner is aggrieved, she would have filed revision against the said order and without filing the revision, the present application is not maintainable. Aggrieved by the same, this revision is filed.

3. It is contended by Ms. P.T.Asha, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that the she was not aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.504 of 2006 and she tried her best to get the documents executed by the plaintiff in and around the date of execution of Ex.B1, viz., 02.03.2004 and since she was not able to get the document, the present application is filed for comparing the signature found in Ex.B1, with that of the admitted signature of the plaintiff in the plaint and vakalat in the suit.

4. On the other hand, Mr.K.Muthukumarasamy, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the document which was marked as Ex.B1, is a created document and though it was stated in the written statement, the document was not produced along with the written statement and subsequently, it was filed and the Lower Court has directed to compare the signature found in Ex.B1, with that of contemporaneous document and without filing any contemporaneous document, it is not open to the revision petitioner to file another application for comparing the signature of the plaintiff found in Ex.B1, with that of the signature found in the plaint as well as in the vakalath. He has further submitted that if the revision petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.504 of 2006, she ought to have taken the matter on revision and therefore, the consequent application for the very same relief is not maintainable. The learned counsel for the respondent also relied upon th