The court established that while contemporaneous documents are preferred for signature comparison, non-contemporaneous documents can also be relevant, allowing expert opinion in disputes over signatures.

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated December 13, 2022, passed in I.A.No.5 of 2022 in O.S.No.23 of 2019 by the 'learned Additional District Judge, Karaikal' [in short 'Trial Court'].

2. The case of the respondent/plaintiff is that the petitioner/defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 5,30,000/- from the plaintiff and executed a Promissory Note on March 10, 2017, agreeing to repay the amount on demand with interest at 12% per annum. On March 21, 2019, the plaintiff sent a demand notice to the defendant, calling upon her to repay the entire amount of principal and interest due under the Promissory Note. The defendant duly acknowledged the notice on March 25, 2019. However, the defendant has neither come forward to pay any amount nor issued any reply. Consequently, the plaintiff has filed a Suit for the recovery of money.

3. The petitioner/defendant filed a written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint. It is stated in the written statement that the plaintiff forged the defendant's signature and filed a fraudulent claim against her. The defendant claims that she did not execute the alleged Promissory Note dated March 10, 2017, and that she did not borrow any amount from the plaintiff at any point in time. Therefore, the defendant prayed to dismiss the Suit.

4. In the meantime, the defendant filed I.A. No. 4 of 2021 praying to send the promissory note for expert opinion to compare the signature found in the Suit promissory note with the Trust Deed dated July 08, 2019. The Trial Court observed that signatures should be compared with those from a contemporaneous period to the alleged Promissory Note dated March 10, 2017 and that the Trust Deed was executed on July 8, 2019 i.e., after institution of the Suit, and the signature found therein is not a contemporaneous one. Accordingly, the Trial Court dismissed the Interlocutory Application on December 13, 2022, granting liberty to file any document predating Ex-A.1 – Suit Promissory Note.

5. Meanwhile, the defendant filed another Interlocutory Application in I.A. No.5 of 2022 in O.S.No.23 of 2019, seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to take the documents, namely Ex-A.1 – Suit Promissory Note dated March 10, 2017 and the Sale Deed dated March 11, 2015, for scientific investigation and signature comparison. However, the Trial Court dismissed I.A. No. 5 of 2022 on December 13, 2022, holding that the application was merely a repetition of the earlier request and that the documents sought for comparison were not contemporaneous, making the scientific examination unnecessary and serving no fruitful service.

6. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner/defendant has filed the present Civil Revision Petition seeking to set aside the order passed in I.A. No. 5 of 2022 in O.S. No. 23 of 2019.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Trial Court, without properly considering the nature of the document, dismissed the Interlocutory Application. The Trial Court observed that the petitioner should have furnished documents such as a passport and other identification papers for signature comparison. However, since the passport and PAN Card were obtained in the year 2010, the signatures on those documents are not contemporaneous with the signature on the Promissory Note. Therefore, comparing the signature on the Promissory Note with those on the passport and PAN Card may not be relevant. The learned counsel further argued that the signature on the Sale Deed dated March 11, 2015, is contemporaneous in nature and therefore, there is no impediment for sending it for expert opinion. Hence, the learned counsel contended that the Trial Court erred in dismissing the Interlocutory Application. Accordingly, he prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition.

8. Per contra, Mr.S.P.Vijayaraghavan, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff would argue that the sale deed dated March 11, 2015 was not a contemporaneous document. Hence, no useful pu