The time gap between admitted and disputed documents need not be within three years for signature comparison, and the court should consider the defendant's plea in the written statement when deciding on expert opinion applications.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and executable order dated 10.011.2022 passed in the application in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in O.S.No.100 of 2019 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Mudukulathur.)

1. This civil revision petition is preferred as against the order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in O.S.No.100 of 2019, dated 10.11.2022, by the learned Subordinate Judge, Mudukulathur.

2. According to the revision petitioner, the suit in O.S.No.100 of 2019 on the file of the Sub Court, Mudukulathur, was preferred by the respondent/plaintiff for the recovery of sum of Rs.4,61,867/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of plaint till the date of realisation and for permanent injunction restraining the respondent/plaintiff from alienating and encumbering the suit property. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner/first defendant filed an application in I.A.No.1 of 2022 under Section 45, 73 of Indian Evidence Act and Order 26 Rule 10-A of Code of Civil Procedure to send Ex.A1-Promissory Note, dated 01.08.2018, for comparing the signatures of the petitioner/first defendant in Ex.A2-sale deed, dated 22.07.2011 and also the signatures found in vakalat, written statement filed by the first defendant by Handwriting Expert. The contention of the petitioner/first defendant is that the suit promissory note is a forged one. Therefore, opinion of the Handwriting Expert is necessary to find out the genuineness of the promissory notice filed in the above suit. The same was resisted by the respondent/plaintiff by stating that the above attempt of the petitioner/first defendant is only to protract the proceedings and the case is now posted for cross examination of the plaintiff by the first defendant. The trial Court after considering the materials on record and the arguments advanced by the respective counsels, dismissed the petition by stating that the sale deed dated 22.07.2011 is not a contemporaneous document and only when the contemporaneous document is submitted, the same shall be sent for comparing the Handwriting Expert for arriving at a conclusion. Therefore, there is no necessity for comparison. Assailing the said order, the present civil revision petition is filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Court below failed to exercise the jurisdiction conferred on it without application of mind and there is flagrant violation of the principles of law, which resulted in failure of justice to the petitioner. He would further submit that the Court below failed to take note of the fact that the petitioner had produced the registered sale deed dated 22.07.2011 consisting of her signature. Though the opinion of the expert will not be a conclusive proof, it will be a piece of evidence to have a fair conclusion in resolving the dispute between the parties. He would further submit that when there is a specific plea in the written statement filed by the first defendant that the suit promissory note is a fabricated document, the Court below ought to have allowed her application for expert opinion. He would further submit that neither any provision of law nor any rule mandates that the time gap between the admitted and the disputed documents must be within three years. It is for the expert to decide as to whether the admitted and disputed documents are capable of comparison for a viable expert opinion.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that it is essential, within the judicious discretion of the Court, depending on the individual facts and circumstances of the case before it, to seek or not to seek expert opinion as to the comparison of the disputed handwriting/signature with the admitted handwriting/signature under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Court is however not barred from sending the disputed handwriting/signature for comparison to an expert merely because the time gap between the