The court emphasized the importance of the trial Court's discretion in determining the admissibility of documents and the relevance of expert opinion in signature comparison.

1. The Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff has projected the present Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 02.12.2009 in I.A.No.11191 of 2009 in O.S.No.7842 of 2006 passed by the Learned XVII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. The Learned XVII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, while passing the orders in I.A.No.11191 of 2009 in O.S.No.7842 of 2006 on 02.12.2009, has observed in paragraph 8 to the effect that 'However the court has ample powers to compare the signatures in the alleged documents and came to a conclusion. In the present suit evidence on both sides were closed and the suit was posted for argument. Hence as trial has been commenced and document have been marked, the sale agreement Ex.A8, vakalat of the defendant and deposition of Chandran should not be sent out of the custody of the Court and hence dismissed the application without costs.'

3. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Plaintiff submits that the trial Court primarily considered only the safety aspect of the documents and that in reality, it ought to have adopted a safe procedure to send the documents to the Handwriting Expert.

4. Finally, it is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the reason ascribed by the trial Court in dismissing the Interlocutory Application is totally invalid and without appreciation of the legal principles laid down by the Hon'ble High Court.

5. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.KaladeviV. V.R. Somasundaram and others, AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1654 at page 1655 wherein it is laid down as follows:

"The main provision in S.49 provides that any document which is required to be registered, if not registered, shall not affect any immovable property comprised therein nor such document shall be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property. Proviso, however, would show that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by 1908 Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to be registered may be received as an evidence to the contract in a suit for specific performance or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effect by registered instrument. By virtue of proviso, therefore, an unregistered sale deed of an immovable property of the value of Rs.100/-and more could be admitted in evidence as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance of the contract. Such an unregistered sale deed can also be admitted in evidence as an evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered document. When an unregistered sale deed is tendered in evidence, not as evidence of a completed sale, but as proof of an oral agreement of sale, the deed can be received in evidence making an endorsement that it is received only as evidence of an oral agreement of sale under the proviso to S.49. S.3(b) of Specific Relief Act (1963) provides that nothing in 1963 Act shall be deemed to affect the operation of 1908 Act, o documents. By admission of an unregistered sale deed in evidence in a suit for specific performance as evidence of contract, none of the provisions of 1908 Act is affected; rather Court acts in consonance with proviso appended to S.49."

6. He also seeks in aid of the decision of this Court in SelvamV. Mohamad Gani, 2008 (5) CTC 206 wherein it is held as follows:

"As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the suit is merely one for recovery of money. It is not a Suit for fore closure. Therefore the petitioner wanted to rely upon the document in question, just for the purpose of establishing the loan transactions between the parties. In such circumstances, when the petitioner is not suing on an unregistered mortgage deed, the Court below ought to have accepted the document to be marked in evidence. This is a settled position in law. Therefore, the Court below was wrong in rejecting the Application."

7.