IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 12.12.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

CMP.No.31435 of 2025

Muthulakshmi ... Petitioner

Vs.

Meera

Rep. By her power agent

Mr.Varadharaj ...Respondent PRAYER :Civil Revision Petition filed Article 227 of Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order dated 12.08.2025 made in I.A.No.8/2025 in O.S.No.21 of 2015 on the file of the 3rd Additional District Judge at

Puducherry.

For Petitioner : M/s.U.Karunakaran

ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the

Trial Court allowing the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking comparison of signature of one Rajesh found in Exhibit A-11 with his admitted

signature in Exhibit B-12.

2. The respondent herein filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the petitioner based on the registered sale deed executed by one Vasanthi in favour of respondent. It is also stated that in respect of other portion of the suit property, the respondent's son purchased the property and he also instituted a similar suit against the petitioner in OS.No.105 of 2018. The petitioner/defendant, on her part, filed a separate suit in OS.No.162 of 2016 seeking permanent injunction against respondent and his son Dhamodharan in respect of suit properties in both the suits. All the suits are tried together. When respondent's power agent was examined as PW1, he was cross-examined by the petitioner with regard to the signature of one Rajesh found in Exhibit A-11 relied on by the respondent. It was suggested by the petitioner to PW-1 that signature of Rajesh found in Exhibit A-11 was not genuine one. Therefore, the respondent filed instant application seeking comparison of signature of Rajesh found in Exhibit A-11 with his signature found in Exhibit B-12 marked on petitioner's side. The said application was allowed by the trial court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that Ex.

A11 is an unregistered document and the original was also not produced by the respondent. Therefore, the signature of Rajesh found in Ex.A11 cannot be compared with signature found in Ex.B12. It is further submitted that though petitioner marked Ex.B12 on his side, signature of Rajesh in Ex.B12 was also not admitted. The petitioner for the first time in this CRP, raises a plea that the signature of Rajesh found in Exhibit B-12 was not admitted by him.

4. A perusal of the counter filed by the petitioner in the instant application would indicate that the signature of Rajesh found in Exhibit B-12 was not at all specifically disputed.

5. It is seen from the typed set of papers that in order to prove her case, the respondent produced Exhibit A-11, document in favour of respondent's vendor namely Vasanthi. The evidentiary value of Exhibit A-11 can be gone into at the time of final disposal. Since P.W.1 was cross-examined disputing the signature of Rajesh found in Exhibit A-11, the instant application has been filed by respondent seeking comparison of signature of Rajesh found in Exhibit A-11 with Exhibit B-12, which was marked on the side of the petitioner.

6. The Trial Court, taking into consideration the controversy involved in this suit by cross-examination of the petitioner, allowed the application. The evidentiary value of Exhibit A-11 and the usefulness of comparing the signature of Rajesh found in Exhibit A-11 with Exhibit B-12, etc., can be decided at the time of final disposal. Merely because an expert opinion is received, it is not binding on the court. The binding nature of the report shall be decided only after hearing parties at the time of final disposal. Therefore, merely getting opinion from the expert will not cause any prejudice to the petitioner. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to raise all objections at the time of final disposal. No costs.

Consequently, the connected misc