The main legal point established is that the principle of res judicata does not apply when an earlier order does not finally decide the issue or terminate the litigation. Additionally, the court emphasized the importance of expert opinion in establishing disputed signatures.

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 09.10.2006, made in I.A.No.279 of 2005, in A.S.No.72 of 2005, on the file of the learned District Judge, Karur.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-

The petitioner herein has filed the suit in O.S.No.73 of 2003, on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kulithalai, against the respondents herein for specific performance on the basis of an alleged written agreement dated 20.01.2003. The respondents herein have filed a detailed written statement, wherein they have denied the execution of the sale agreement and alleged that the said document has been fraudulently created by committing forgery. Ultimately, on completing the trial, the learned Subordinate Judge, decreed the suit by an order dated 30.09.2004 in favour of the plaintiff. Challenging the said decree, the first respondent herein has filed an appeal in A.S.No.72 of 2005, before the learned District Judge, Karur. During the pendency of the said appeal, the first respondent who is the first defendant in the said suit has filed I.A.No.279 of 2005, praying for an appointment of Advocate Commissioner to take Ex.A.1, original sale agreement dated 20.01.2003, for comparison by the Hand Writing Expert namely, the Superintendent of Police (FD), Tamilnadu Finger Print Bureu, Mylapore, Chennai – 4. In support of the said application, the first respondent has filed an affidavit wherein, he has stated that even while the suit was pending before the trial Court, a similar application in I.A.No.141 of 2004, was filed seeking to send the document for comparison and the same was dismissed on the ground that it was filed after the commencement of the trial. He has further averred that he has intended to file a revision challenging the said order of dismissal by obtaining a certified copy. But, before the same could be done, the trial was completed by the trial Court. He has further averred that a stay petition filed by him before the lower Court was also dismissed and judgment was pronounced in the suit. He has further averred that, because of the above said reasons, he could not file any revision, challenging the order of the trial Court refusing to send the document for comparison and hence, I.A.No.279 of 2005, has been filed at the appellate stage. He has further averred that, the dismissal of the earlier application and non filing of any revision would not operate as res judicata to maintain the present petition.

3. The petitioner herein has filed a detailed counter in I.A.No.279 of 2005, wherein he has stated that it is untenable to prefer the said application at the stage of appeal, in view of the fact that there is no revision filed challenging the order in I.A.NO.141 of 2004, passed by the trial Court, refusing to send the document for comparison. He has further stated that, the trial Court itself has compared the admitted signature found in the other records and it has come to the right conclusion that the signature has been made only by the first defendant and therefore, it does not require any more comparison by an Expert. He has further stated that while exercising the power of appeal, even the appellate Court can very well compare the disputed signature with the admitted signature, and come to a right conclusion. Therefore appointment of an Advocate Commissioner is not at all sustainable.

4. I have considered the rival contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents and also perused the records. According to the plaint averments the disputed sale agreement was executed by the first respondent/first defendant on 20.01.2003. The first respondent/first defendant in the written statement has denied the execution of the said document and he has made a specific plea that the said sale agreement is a forged, fabricated, concocted and created one. It is also the admitted case that before the trial Court, the first respondent her