M.V. Muralidaran, J.

1. The plaintiff is the civil revision petitioner before this Court, challenging the order passed in I.A.No.580 of 2011 in O.S.No.19 of 2009, dated 15.09.2011, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Poonamallee.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that he has filed the suit in O.S.No.19 of 2009 before the learned Subordinate Court, Poonamallee, for specific performance against the respondents/defendants, based on the sale agreement dated 04.10.2007. The defendants, who are the original owners of the property were denied the suit allegations set out by this petitioner/plaintiff.

3. When the agreement was in existence, the first defendant, who is the owner of the property only on pretext to cheat the petitioner/plaintiff had sold the suit property to the 3rd defendant Mr. P.C. Mohan Babu through the power of attorney the 2nd defendant herein, executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant on 15.10.2007.

4. Though the summons were served in the suit, but the defendants 1 and 2 were not appeared before the Court, hence they were set ex parte. The 3rd defendant, who is the alleged purchaser of the property alone was appeared and filed his written statement, denying the allegations set out in the plaint.

5. Though the plaintiff was filed the suit for specific performance, the executants of the sale agreement dated 04.10.2007 namely, the first defendant should be examined, but purposely since because he was sold the property to the 3rd defendant, has not appeared and his power of attorney namely the 2nd defendant also not appeared before the Court. In the said circumstances, this plaintiff has filed an application under Order 26, Rule 10A of CPC read with Section 47 of the Indian Evidence Act, by way of an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.580 of 2011 before the learned Subordinate Court, Poonamallee, for sending the signature signed both in Ex.A1 - Sale agreement dated 04.10.2007 executed in favour of the plaintiff and Ex.B4, the alleged power of attorney executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant to the expert to compare that whether both the signatures are one and the same in the interest of justice.

6. In the said petition, the petitioner/plaintiff stated that if the 1st defendant is appeared before the Court and giving evidence about the Ex.A1-the sale agreement executed in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff, then comparison of signature in respect of Ex.A1 and Ex.B4 would not be arosed. Therefore, he prayed the trial Court namely Subordinate Court, Poonamallee, without sending the signature both found in Ex.A1 and B4, the genuineness of the Ex.A1 Sale agreement would not be proved, since the executant namely the defendant has not appeared in the Court.

7. Denying the above allegation on the petition, the 3rd defendant has filed his counter stating that though the matter is posted in the argument stage and the argument was also advanced on the side of the 3rd defendant and at this belated stage, the petitioner/plaintiff was filed the application in I.A.No.580 of 2011 is not maintainable.

8. The respondent/3rd defendant also states that when the petitioner/plaintiff has not stated any reason for not examining the attesting witnesses to the impugned document and they have failed to examine the attesting witness to the impugned document, the petitioner/plaintiff cannot seek for expert opinion and the provision of law quoted by the petitioner is also not correct. Therefore, the respondents/defendants prayed the trial Court for dismissal of the above application.

9. Considering both side cases, the learned Subordinate Court, Poonamallee, was pleased to dismiss the application on the ground that the 1st defendant, who executed Ex.A1 was set ex parte in the suit and the case of the 3rd defendant is he purchased the property for valuable consideration without knowing the agreement Ex.A1, so a bona fide purchaser, he entitle to get the benefit of Section 19(b) of Specific Relief Act. When t