The main legal point established is the preference for examination of disputed documents within the court premises and the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for verification by the Forensic Science Department to ensure justice.

C.R.P.(PD)(MD) No.1460 of 2008 is filed challenging the order dated 25.2.2008 made in I.A.Ho.303 of 2007 in I.A.No.341 of 2006 in O.S.”No.394 of 2005 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai, wherein the prayer of the third defendant under Order 26 Rule 9 and Section 151 of CPC, for comparing the signatures in the admitted documents to decide the issues involved in the suit regarding the disputed signatures, was rejected.

2. C.R.P.(PD)(MD) No.2293 of 2008 is filed challenging the order made in I.A.No.962 of 2007 in I.A.No.491 of 2007 in O.S.No. 394 of 2005, wherein the prayer of the first defendant under Section 151 CPC, for appointing an Advocate Commissioner, in whose presence the examination of the disputed documents were sought to be made by the expert, was rejected.

3. The brief facts necessary for disposal of these revision petitions are that the first respondent in both the revision petitions filed the suit O.S.No.394 of 2035 praying for a decree declaring that the first respondent/plaintiff and the defendants are jointly entitled to the suit ‘A’ schedule well as co-owners and the third defendant is not having any independent right over the same and the suit well is intended for common use of the plaintiff and defendants and in consequence thereof to pass an order of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit ‘A’ schedule well and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men and agents from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit ‘B’ schedule property. In support of his contention, in the plaint, the plaintiff/first respondent herein filed a list of documents viz., lease agreement dated 15.8.1986, Sale Agreement dated 15.12.1985 etc.

4. In the written statement filed the first defendant/petitioner in C.R.P.(PD)(MD) No. 2293 of 2008 has taken a specific plea that the defendant never executed any lease agreement and was not at all a party to any such lease agreement dated 15.8.1986. He further contended that the sale agreement dated 15.12.1985 and the lease deed dated 15.8.1986 are nothing but fraudulent creations by the plaintiff by indulging in rank forgery.

5. On the basis of the above pleading, the first defendant/petitioner in C.R.P.(PD)(MD) No.2293 of 2008 filed I.A.No.491 of 2006 and the third defendant/petitioner in C.R.P.(PD)(MD) No.1460 of 2008 filed I.A.No.341 of 2006 seeking to appoint an advocate Commissioner for the purpose of sending the disputed documents for comparison and for a obtaining opinion from the Handwriting Expert. The Assistant Director (Documents), Forensic Science Department, Mylapore, Chennai-4, by letter dated 26.12.2006 stated that it is practically not possible to compare and scientifically examine the documents in the Court “to” find out the genuineness of the signatures.

6. Based on the letter of the Forensic Science Department referred above, the first defendant/petitioner in C.R.P.(PD)(MD) No. 2293 of 2008 filed I.A.No.962 of 2007 and the third defendant/petitioner in C.R.P.(PD)(MD) No.1460 of 2008 filed I.A.No.303 of 2007 and prayed for appointing an Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of sending the documents for comparison and for obtaining opinion from the Handwriting Expert. 13 documents were sought to be verified by the Handwriting Expert.

7. The said applications were rejected and permission was granted to invite the Hand Writing Expert to the Court in a working day and in the presence of the Sarishtadar, the expert was ordered to verify the signatures contained in the disputed documents. The request for sending the documents out of the Court for verification in the presence of the Advocate Commissioner was rejected.

8. The said orders are challenged in these revision petitions on the ground that the Assistant Director (Documents) Forensic