Court emphasized the right to allow forensic expert comparison of disputed signatures in summary suits, recognizing procedural defects can be remedied.

COMMON ORDER

The defendant in a suit filed under Order XXXVII Rule 1 and 2 of CPC, aggrieved by the dismissal of an application seeking leave to defend the suit and having challenged the same by way of an appeal in A.S.No.78 of 2023, is the revision petitioner. In the pending appeal, the revision petitioner had filed I.A.No.6 of 2024 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for sending the disputed signature in the promissory note for comparison to the expert. The said application was taken out, along with another application for adducing additional evidence in the appeal. The First Appellate Court has dismissed both the applications, as against which, the defendant has come up by way of the present revisions.

2.I have heard Mr.S.Vasudevan, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant in both the revisions. Despite service of notice, the respondent/plaintiff has not chosen to appear either in person or through counsel. I have proceeded to hear Mr.S.Vasudevan, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have gone through the records.

3.The respondent herein has filed the suit in O.S.No.4370 of 2021 as a summary suit under Order XXXVII Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. The petitioner took out an application in I.A.No.1 of 2022, seeking leave to defend the said suit. The Trial Court dismissed the application and refused to grant leave to defend the suit. Challenging the judgment and decree in O.S.No.4370 of 2021, the defendant has preferred A.S.No.78 of 2023. In the pending appeal, the defendant has filed I.A.No.6 of 2024 for sending the disputed promissory note to the forensic lab, for expert opinion. The First Appellate Court has dismissed the application, as against which, one revision has been filed. In view of the dismissal of the application to adduce additional evidence in the appeal, the second revision has also been filed.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would take me through the defence taken in I.A.No.1 of 2022, being the application for leave to defend the suit and contend that the defendant had specifically denied the execution of the promissory note, besides also claiming that he never borrowed any money from the plaintiff and that there was no privity of contract between the petitioner and the respondent.

5.As the Trial Court has refused to grant leave and dismissed the said I.A.No.1 of 2022, the revision petitioner has challenged the decree passed against the petitioner in the suit, consequent to dismissal of the application for leave to defend. In order to establish that the suit promissory note is forged, the petitioner was constrained to take out an application in the pending appeal. However, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the First Appellate Court has arrived at an incorrect conclusion that the petitioner has not denied the signature in the promissory note, without noticing the specific stand taken in the application for leave to defend. However, the First Appellate Court was right in observing that the petitioner has also not relied on or produced any admitted signatures to enable the forensic expert to even compare the disputed signatures with the admitted signatures. However, this defect can always be cured and cannot be a ground to dismiss the application itself.

6.In view of the above discussion, I am inclined to set aside the order of the First Appellate Court in I.A.No.6 of 2024, refusing to refer the disputed promissory note dated 20.06.2018 to the forensic lab for comparison.

7.In fine, CRP.No.1604 of 2025 is allowed in the manner following:

(i) The order dated 07.03.2025 in I.A.No.6 of 2024 in A.S.No.78 of

2023 on the file of the XVI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, is set aside.

(ii) The petitioner/appellant shall produce admitted signatures of the petitioner t