The burden of proof lies with the petitioner to prove the signature, and the court may direct comparison with other available signatures to ensure justice.

1. The petitioner, who is facing proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, before the trial Court, is aggrieved over the dismissal of the petition to summon the Manager/Staff of the Bank of India, Kodambakkam Branch, Chennai, to produce specimen signature and xerox copy of the specimen signature of Late.T.P.Selva Rayan, having SB Account No.0259 in the said Bank, has filed these petitions.

2. The reason given by the trial Court is that the petitions have been filed only with an intention to prolong the matter. If the petitioner wants to prove that the signature found in the letter dated 21.06.2005 is that of the respondents' father, he could have taken steps to compare the signature in the said document with the signature found in the vakalat and also in the complaint as well as in the proof affidavit. When the signatures are already available before the Court, there is no necessity to summon the Manager/Staff of the Bank of India, Kodambakkam Branch, Chennai, to produce the documents. The said reasonings cannot be found fault with. First of all, the burden is cast upon the petitioner to prove that the signature found in the letter dated 21.06.2005 is that of the respondents' father. For that, as already pointed out by the trial Court, during the same period, almost within one year the respondents' father filed a complaint on 13.07.2006 and the signatures are available in that complaint as well as in the vakalat. There is no mention that the document which is sought to be summoned is the only contemporaneous document as that of the letter dated 21.06.2005. Even in the affidavit, the petitioner has not stated before the trial Court that in the absence of any such contention, the said document cannot be summoned.

3. As the burden is cast upon the petitioner and his right is involved, to give an opportunity to the petitioner, the trial Court is directed to send the signature of the respondents' father found in the letter dated 21.06.2005 to be compared along with the specimen signatures found in the vakalat as well as in the complaint in C.C.No.236 of 2006, dated 13.07.2006, otherwise there will be a failure of justice. In view of that, the trial Court is directed to send the documents for expert opinion within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and after getting the opinion, the trial Court shall dispose of the matters on or before 31st December, 2014.

4. The Criminal Original Petitions are disposed of, with the above directions. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

5. The Registry is directed to send the entire records to the trial Court, immediately.