Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 2963
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M.V. Muralidaran, J.
G. Venkatesan – Appellant
Vs.
K.S. Ravichandran – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition (Pd) No. 844, 1131 of 2018, Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 3704, 4848 of 2018
Decided On : 22-10-2018
R. Devaraj, Adv., P. Arun Jayatram, Adv.
The trial court has the authority to compare disputed signatures with admitted signatures and seek expert opinion if necessary.
Headnote:
Comparison of Signatures - Civil Procedure - Section 151 CPC, Order 26 Rule 10(A) - Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act - [Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, Order 26 Rule 10(A) of CPC]
Fact of the Case:
The defendants filed petitions seeking comparison of disputed signature with admitted signature. The trial court allowed the first petition but dismissed the second. The defendants appealed against both orders.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the trial court was empowered to compare the disputed signatures with the admitted signatures and to seek expert opinion if necessary. The trial court was directed to compare the signatures and dispose of the suit within three months.
Issues: The main issue was the admissibility of the petitions seeking comparison of signatures and the trial court's authority to do so.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and Order 26 Rule 10(A) of CPC to establish the trial court's power to compare signatures and seek expert opinion.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petitions were allowed, the trial court's orders were set aside, and directions were given to compare the signatures and dispose of the suit within three months.
M.V.Muralidaran, J.
Civil Revision Petition No.1131 of 2018 is directed against the order dated 2.8.2017 passed in I.A.No.273 of 2014 in O.S.No.1 of 2012 on the file of the learned Sub-Court, Sriviliputhur. Civil Revision Petition No.844 of 2018 has been filed against the order dated 8.2.2018 passed in I.A.No.844 of 2017 in I.A.No.273 of 2014 in O.S.No.1 of 2012 on the file of the learned Sub-Court, Sriviliputhur.
2. The petitioners herein are defendants and the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.
4. The plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration to declare that the suit property belongs to him and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men, agents and servants from in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
5. The defendants have filed I.A.No.273 of 2014 under Order 26, Rule 10(A) read with Section 151 CPC to send for the sale deed dated 29.6.1973 filed by the plaintiff, document bearing No.1533/1973 dated 2.12.1975, document bearing No.2479/1975 on the file of the learned Rajapalayam Sub Registrar Office and the plaint in O.S.No.499 of 1974 on the file of the learned District Munsif Court, Srivilliputhur for comparison of the signature of Danushkodiraja and obtain expert opinion.
6. By an order dated 2.8.2017, the trial Court allowed the petition by observing that if needs the trial Court can itself compare the disputed signature of Danushkodiraja found in the sale deed dated 29.6.1973 with an admitted signature found in the book maintained by the Sub Registrar dated 22.8.1973. While observing so, the trial Court directed to take a photo copy of the relevant book page of the document No.1533 of 1973 dated 22.8.1973 for comparison and ordered to return the same to the Sub Registrar. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants have preferred C.R.P.No.1131 of 2018.
7. Thereafter, the defendants have filed I.A.No.844 of 2017 in O.S.No.273 of 2014 under Section 151 CPC read with Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking to appoint an advocate commissioner to produce the original documents from the Court to the Forensic Science Department and to get the report from the department for comparison of the signature of Danushkodiraja.
8. By an order dated 8.2.2018, the trial Court dismissed the petition by observing that since the defendants have not filed any appeal against the order passed in I.A.No.273 of 2014 and in view of the observation made in I.A.No.273 of 2014, the present petition was not maintainable and thus, dismissed the same. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants have preferred C.R.P.No.844 of 2018.
9. It is to be noted that after the order passed in I.A.No.844 of 2017 dated 8.2.2018, on 6.6.2018, the defendants have filed C.R.P.No.1131 of 2018 against the order passed in I.A.No.273 of 2014. Both the revisions were taken up together and heard.
10. I heard Mr.R.Devaraj, learned counsel for the defendants/revision petitioners and Mr.P.Arun Jayatram, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff in both the Civil Revision Petitions. I have also gone through the material papers available on record.
11. Learned counsel for the defendants contended that the trial Court having allowed I.A.No.273 of 2014 with certain modification, ought not to have directed that if required, the Court can itself compare the disputed signature of Danushkodiraja with the admitted signature found in the document dated 22.8.1973.
12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that as per Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Court is empowered to compare the disputed signatures with the admitted signatures and the trial Court has rightly observed so. Therefore, there is no necessity to interfere with the orders of the trial Court.
13. Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act reads as follows:
"45. Opinion of experts.
When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of
