The petitioner must prove the authenticity of disputed signatures to establish a claim.

COMMON ORDER

These civil revision petitions are filed against the order dated

24.07.2025 passed in I.A.Nos.10 & 11/2025 in O.S.No.251/2018 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Namakkal.

2. The unsuccessful defendants have preferred the petitions.

One C.Nachimuthu, has filed the suit in O.S.No251/2018 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Namakkal, seeking the relief of recovery of money for a sum of Rs.10,75,200/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 18% per annum on Rs.7,00,000/- from the date of suit till the settlement of the suit claim. The defendants have filed a written statement and necessary issues were framed. Both side evidences were completed and the case was posted for arguments. At this stage, the plaintiff has filed an application in I.A.No.11/2025 in O.S.No.251/2018 under Section 151 of CPC to re-open the case. The plaintiff has also filed an application in I.A.No.10/2025 in O.S.No.251/2018 under Order XXVI Rule 10(a) of CPC to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to take the disputed documents viz. Ex.A1, Ex.A2, Ex.A4 and Ex.A5 along with admitted documents / Ex.A3 and hand over the same to the Tamil Nadu Government Fingerprint Testing Centre for getting expert opinion.

3. Upon hearing either side, the Court below, vide order dated

24.07.2025, allowed the applications on the ground that it is necessary to decide the lis between the parties regarding the disputed documents viz. Ex.A1, Ex.A2, Ex.A4 and Ex.A5 along with admitted documents in Ex.A3 to be compared to find out the alleged signature of Thangavel.

Aggrieved over the same, the defendants have preferred these petitions.

4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would submit that the Court below failed to consider the signature of Late. Thangavel in Ex.A1, Ex.A2, Ex.A4 and Ex.A5 was denied and the same was stated in the written statement filed by the revision petitioners / defendants as early on 26.03.2019. However, the respondent/plaintiff without taking any steps, after a long delay of six years, have filed the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. The Court below failed to appreciate that the respondent / plaintiff was well aware of the fact that the thumb impression and signature in Ex.A1, Ex.A2, Ex.A4 and Ex.A5 was denied by the revision petitioners/defendants from the beginning and even in PW1 cross examination, the respondent / plaintiff have admitted that he has not taken any steps to send the documents for Forensic Science Examination. Therefore, in order to fill the lacuna in the evidence, the present petitions have been filed, which is liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel further would submit that the trial court, on misconception, allowed the petitions, stating that the signature in Ex.A1 / promissory note dated 04.11.2012 executed by Thangavel in favour of the plaintiff, Ex.A2 / Renewal promissory note dated 31.10.2015, Ex.A4 / letter dated 27.10.2012 letter of deposit of title deeds, Ex.A5 / letter of confirmation executed by Thangavel in favour of the plaintiff was denied by the defendants and duty is cast on the plaintiff to prove that the signature is that of Thangavel, which caused great prejudice to the revision petitioners / defendants.

6. Admittedly, the suit in O.S.No.251/2018 on either side the evidences were completed and the case was posted for arguments on 25.04.2025, 28.04.2025, 03.06.2025 and finally the case was posted on 09.06.2025 for arguments. At this stage, the plaintiff has come up with applications seeking for re-open and for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to take the disputed documents to the Tamil Nadu Government Fingerprint Testing Centre for getting an expert opinion. According to the revision petitioners, the signature