C O M M O N O R D E R

(The matter is heard through “Video Conferencing/Hybrid Mode”.)

These Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the fair and decretal orders dated 13.10.2015 passed in I.A.Nos.24 & 25 of 2015 in A.S.No.8 of

2014 on the file of the Sub Court, Pollachi.

2.The issues involved in both the Civil Revision Petitions are one and the same and hence, these Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of by this common order.

3.The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.65 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Pollachi and appellant in A.S.No.8 of 2014 on the file of the Sub Court, Pollachi. The petitioner filed the said suit against the respondents for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 25.06.1991 executed by deceased R.Palanisamy, husband of respondents 1 & 4 and father of respondents 2, 3 & 5. The said suit was dismissed by the judgment and decree dated 19.12.2013. Against the said judgment and decree, the petitioner filed First Appeal in A.S.No.8 of 2014. Pending First Appeal, the petitioner filed the present two applications, I.A.No.24 of 2015 to send the register maintained by the Sub-Registrar Office, Pollachi dated 14.10.1988 in Book No.4, Document No.91/1988 along with disputed signature and I.A.No.25 of 2015 to call for the register maintained by the Sub-Registrar Office, Pollachi dated 14.10.1988 in Book No.4, Document No.91/1988.

4.According to the petitioner, the deceased R.Palanisamy entered into agreement of sale dated 25.06.1991 with her to sell his suit property. He made endorsements with agreement of sale dated 25.06.1991, on 20.09.1991, 15.06.1992, 17.10.1992, 31.07.1993 and 26.10.1993, which were marked as Exs.A1, A7 to A11 respectively. The deceased R.Palanisamy issued receipt to the petitioner on the date of agreement of sale, which was marked as Ex.A2. The respondents have denied the execution portion of agreement of sale by the deceased R.Palanisamy, Ex.A2 / receipt and also other endorsements in Exs.A7 to A11. According to petitioner, the Trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that petitioner has not taken any steps to obtain expert opinion with regard to genuineness of Exs.A1, A2, A7 to A11. The learned Trial Judge has erroneously fixed burden on the petitioner to prove the genuineness of signature in Ex.A1, instead of placing the burden on the respondents to prove that signature is not genuine. The deceased R.Palanisamy and his brother Srinivasan borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000/- from the petitioner on 14.10.1988 and executed promissory note, which was registered on the same day before the Sub-Registrar Office, Pollachi and the petitioner has come out with the present two applications for the relief stated above.

5.The respondents 1 to 3 filed counter affidavits in both the applications and denied the execution of agreement of sale as well as receipt and other endorsements. They also denied the fact that the deceased R.Palanisamy and his brother Srinivasan borrowed money and executed the document. The document now sought to be compared with agreement of sale and other documents are not of contemporary period, the same cannot be compared with and cannot get opinion from the hand writing expert and prayed for dismissal of both the applications.

6.The learned Judge considering the averments in the affidavit and counter affidavit, dismissed both the applications holding that the documents now sought for comparison are not of contemporary period and expert will not give opinion, unless admitted signature in a document of contemporary period is produced.

7.Against the said orders of dismissal dated 13.10.2015 passed in I.A.Nos.24 & 25 of 2015, the petitioner has come out with the present Civil Revision Petitions.

8.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the learned Judge ought to have considered the application in I.A.No.24 of 2015 for sending the disputed signature of the deceased R.Palanisamy with his admitted signature for expert opinion independently and