ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated

07.03.2019 made in I.A.No.256 of 2018 in O.S.No.47 of 2017 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Arakkonam.

2. The Revision Petitioner is the Plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.47 of 2017 which has been filed for recovery of money.

3. The case of the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff is that one K.Ravichandran borrowed a sum of Rs.85,000/- on 16.03.2008 and executed a pronote agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at the rate of 24% p.a., 4. On 12.04.2014, Ravichandran died intestate leaving behind the defendants in the suit as his legal heirs to succeed the estate left by him. The 1st defendant is the mother; 2nd defendant/respondent herein is the wife and the defendants 3 to 5 are the daughters and son of Ravichandran respectively. After the demise of Ravichandran, the Petitioner/Plainitff demanded the defendants to discharge the said debt along with interest but the defendants failed to discharge the same, hence, the suit was filed for recovery of money.

5.The Respondent/2nd Defendant, by filing a written statement, took a stand that the petitioner/plaintiff has fabricated the suit promissory note, by forging the signatures of the 2nd defendant's husband. The 2nd defendant has filed an application in I.A.No.256 of 2018 in the suit, for comparison of the admitted signatures with the alleged singnature in the pro note and the said application was allowed on 07.03.2019. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

6.The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff would submit that I.A.No.256/2018 was filed very belatedly. The Petitioner/Plainitff has filed his proof affidavit and marked the documents. The suit is posted for cross examination of P.W.1. When the respondent/2nd defendant has taken a specific plea that her husband has not borrowed any amount from the Revision Petitioner/Plaintiff and he has not executed any pronote in favour of the plaintiff, there is no question of comparison of signature arose. Further, it is the bounden duty of the petitioner/plaintiff to prove the genuineness of the signature in the pronote and not the respondent/2nd defendant. The Respondent/2nd Defendant must have cross examined P.W.1 and then if further evidence is let in by the petitioner/plaintiff by examining other attesting witnesses in the pronote, they are also to be cross examined by the respondent/2nd defendant and the respondent has to be examined as witness and then only a petition under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act would lie, to compare the disputed signatures in the suit pronote with that of the admitted signatures of Ravichandran.

7. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner relied on the following decisions :-

(1) Garre Mallikharjuna Rao (D) by L.R's. And Ors Vs. Nalabothu Punniah reported in MANU/SC/0228/2013 .

(2) Lalit Popli Vs. Canara Bank and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0144/2003.

(3) Eswari Ammal Vs. Vallimayil and Ors. reported in MANU/TN/6819/2021.

(4) N.Chinnasamy Vs. P.S.Swaminathan reported in MANU/TN/9559/2006.

8. The learned counsel for the Respondent/Defendant has submitted that comparison of disputed signatures pertaining to the husband of the Respondent/2nd Defendant with the alleged suit pronote is necessary and hence, the court below is right in sending the documents for expert opinion.

9. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order.

10. The learned Judge, on considering the evidence of both sides and on perusal of records, held that when the respondent/defendant denies the signature in a particular document, which is very much relied on by the petitioner/plaintiff, it is for the petitioner to take steps for examination of the disputed signature by sending the document to a handwriting expert; however, in the instant case, the respondent/defendant herself has come up with a petition for comparison, therefore, no prejudice will be caused