JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 20.07.2022 passed in I.A.No.267 of 2022 in O.S.No.6 of 2019 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Palladam.)

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred challenging the order dated 20.07.2022 passed in I.A.No.267 of 2022 in O.S.No.6 of 2019 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Palladam.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the entire materials available on record.

3. The revision petitioners are the defendants, against whom, the respondent/plaintiff filed the said suit for recovery of money due on promissory note. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners had filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.267 of 2022 for sending Exs.A1 and A2 to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad for comparing the disputed signatures of the first defendant on them with the other admitted signatures of the first defendant and get his opinion. The said application was dismissed. Aggrieved over that, the petitioners have preferred this revision petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even before the filing the present interlocutory application, the petitioners filed an earlier application in I.A.No.161 of 2019 seeking to send Exs.A1 and A2 to an expert to be compared with the other admitted signatures of the first defendant. However, the handwriting expert without comparing the signatures, sent a report stating that it was not possible for her to do comparison in view of some difficulty and hence she did not give any objection about the signatures; the expert was examined as a witness before the Court as C.W.1. When she was cross examined by the defendants she has stated that she could not compare the signatures, because the documents sent for comparison were not contemporaneous documents; the reason stated by the expert is not acceptable and hence, the defendants who are aggrieved had filed the present application for re-doing the comparison by some other expert at the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad; the learned Trial Judge, without considering the grievance of the petitioners had chosen to dismiss the application and hence the impugned order should be set aside.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the matter has reached the stage of judgment and in fact the judgment has been reserved for 29.08.2022; even if the expert's report is obtained, it cannot be taken as a conclusive proof and hence the order of the learned trial Judge should not be disturbed in a way that would delay the disposal of the suit.

6. It is seen from the records that even before filing the application in I.A.No.267 of 2002, the revision petitioners filed the earlier application in I.A.No.161 of 2019 for sending the disputed signatures to an expert. It is prayed that the Exs.A1 and A2 which contain the disputed signature of the first defendant should be compared with the other admitted signatures. But, the expert, without completing the assignment, has chosen to send a report by stating that comparison could not be done. Even in the report, no reason has been stated as to why the comparison could not be made. During the cross examination of the expert, who was examined as C.W.1, she has stated that she could not make comparison because the contemporaneous documents were not sent to her. The requirement of contemporaneous documents for the purpose of comparison is a concern of the Court and the parties. Even if the expert feels the necessity of contemporaneous documents and if the Court below does not procure the same, the expert cannot disown the duty of giving an opinion by comparing the available signatures from the documents sent to her.

7. Whatever may be the case, the opinion of the expert can only have a persuasive effect and it cannot be considered as a conclusive proof. Since it