The necessity to compare signatures arises only if authorship is disputed; admission of signature negates the grounds for such comparison.

JUDGMENT :

Prelude:

C.S.No.536 of 1999 is filed for recovery of Rs.62,64,658.40, with interest at the rate of 24% p.a., on the principal amount of Rs.40,67,960/- from the date of plaint till the date of recovery.

2. The suit was decree exparte on 26.04.2012. The decree-holder had resorted to execution of the decree by filing E.P.No.151 of 2013, which was transmitted to Execution Court at Delhi and renumbered as E.P.No.258 of 2013. Subsequently, it was re-transferred to District Court, Delhi and renumbered as E.P.No.210 of 2017. While the Execution Petition is pending, the 1^st respondent/judgment debtor has taken out an Application No.5583 of 2022 before the Original Side Jurisdiction of this Court, which has passed decree in C.S.No.536 of 1999.

3. The prayer sought in Application No.5583 of 2022 is as below:-

Application No.5583 of 2022 is filed to set aside the exparte decree along with application to condone delay in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree. The plaintiff, who is the exparte decree holder, has filed counter seeking dismissal of the application to set aside the exparte decree with an enormous delay of 3784 days. Pending the application to set aside the exparte decree, the decree holder has also ventured to take out three Application Nos.974, 975 and 976 of 2024, to initiate contempt proceedings against the 1^st defendant for forging the signature in the affidavit filed in Application No.5583 of 2022, to send the disputed signature in the affidavit for comparison with the admitted signature to get opinion of the handwriting expert. The decree-holder also request the Court to compare the disputed signature with the admitted signatures through naked eye and proceed.

4. The Learned Single Judge, after considering the prayers in these three Applications Nos.974, 975, 976 of 2024 and the counter, held that the facts and circumstances of the case, the need for comparison of the signature found in the affidavit filed along with A.No.5583 of 2022 does not arise. The signature is not disputed by the executant, who has signed the affidavit. The signature is denied by his advisory. The dispute and the scope for comparison will arise only when one party relies on a document signed by another party and makes out a case in their favour based on the contents of the document and when the executing party denies the signature found in the document. In view of the Learned Single Judge, the 1^st respondent (the deponent of the affidavit), has admitted the signature and given a plausible reason why in the jurist portion it is mentioned as executed in Chennai. Since the executant has not disputed the signature, the affidavit cannot be treated as false or bogus and therefore, the question of comparison does not arise.

5. The Learned Single Judge, after observing that the application is to condone delay in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree, held that the present Application has been filed only to drag the proceedings without allowing the Court to decide the Application No.5583 of 2022. Therefore, the applications were dismissed, with an observations that though it is a fit case for imposing of costs, the Court refrains from doing so.

6. Being unsatisfied with the observations and dismissal of the three applications, the decree holder/applicant filed an intra-court appeal, which are numbered as O.S.A.Nos.131, 132 and 133 of 2025.

7. Two Learned Judges of this Court, who had gone into the merits of the Applications and the facts, had delivered a split verdict.While one of them, Dr.Justice Anita Sumanth, had ve