M. S. Ramesh, J.

The application against which the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed is an order rejecting the petitioner's request for seeking the signatures of Ex.A.1 for comparison by the handwriting expert under Order 26 Rule 10 (A) of Code of Civil Procedure. The said application has been filed during the pendency of the first appeal.

2. The original suit in O.S.No.25 of 2010 has been filed seeking for a decree of specific performance of sale agreement dated 29.08.2007. The case of the respondent herein is that the petitioner herein has executed the sale agreement on 29.08.2007, agreeing to sell the suit property for a valid sale consideration. The petitioner herein had filed a written statement stating that the respondent herein is a money lender, who had advanced a hand loan of Rs. 50,000/-, at which point of time, she had obtained her signatures in blank papers as well as certain stamp papers. In the written statement, she had also alleged that the sale agreement was forged. Subsequently, the suit came to be decreed on 25.02.2012 as against which, the petitioner herein had preferred an appeal in A.S.No.55 of 2013. After more than four years, the petitioner herein had filed an application in I.A.No.25 of 2017, seeking for sending the sale agreement Exhibit A1 to the handwriting expert for comparison of the signature in the sale agreement with certain admitted signature. The reason adduced in the said application is that the agreement is dated 29.08.2007 and the endorsement made therein have been fabricated and that the petitioner herein had never signed or executed the documents as well as the endorsement.

3. Mr.A.Palaniappan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner herein had raised a specific plea in her written statement that her signature was forged and that the written statement, since was drafted before the Moffusil Court, requires to be construed liberally, for which purpose he placed reliance on the two Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court (Des Raj and Others Vs. Bhagat Ram (Dead) by Lrs. and Others., (2007) 9 SCC 641) and (Narain Prasad Aggarwal (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2007) 11 SCC 736).

4. According to the learned counsel, the case of the petitioner herein before the trial Court was that the signature in the sale agreement is forged and in view of the specific plea taken in her written statement that there was a duty cast on the respondent herein, who had referred the exhibit to the forensic expert for analysis of the signature. In the absence of the same, the petitioner herein is justified in making out the present application and the first appellate Court was not justified in rejecting the same.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that the present application does not deserve any consideration since the application itself has been filed belatedly. According to him, the suit came to be decreed on 25.02.2012 and though the appeal was preferred in the year 2013 itself, there was no explanation as to why the petitioner has chosen to file an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.25 of 2017, only on 09.02.2017. Even otherwise, the appeal has been included in the list for final hearing and at this stage the petitioner's request need not be considered.

6. The learned counsel further submitted that the respondent herein had categorically admitted her signature in the written statement and as such there is no duty cast on the petitioner to take out an application to compare the admitted signature.

7. I have heard the submissions made by the respective counsel. In the light of the submissions made by the respective counsel, the written statement filed before the Trial Court was perused entirety. Though the petitioner herein had stated in the written statement that the sale agreement was forged, there are several averments therein, which indicates that the respondent herein had obtained signatures in blank papers, when