High Court sets aside trial court refusal for forensic signature verification in forgery dispute to ensure fair trial.

ORDER

Challenging the impugned order passed in I.A.No.6 of 2024 in O.S.No.225 of 2019 by the learned Principal Sub-Judge, Krsihangiri, the Revision Petitioners/plaintiffs preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

2. Before the trial court, the Revision Petitioners filed an application under Order 10 Rule 3 and Order 26 Rule 10 r/w Sec.151 of C.P.C., praying to send the signature of second attestor in the sale deed vide document No.221 of 2018 for comparison with the sale deed vide document No.483/2018 stating that on the date of alleged execution, the 2^nd revision petitioner/2^nd attesting witness was not available in that place and he was at Bangalore. The signature found in the said document has also been fabricated and he has not signed as a witness. Hence, he prayed to send the document to compare signature with the admitted signature found in the sale deed dated 24.01.2018, which is contemporary in nature. The said application was objected by the defendants 1 and 2, who are purchasers of suit property. On hearing both sides, the trial judge has dismissed the application. Now, the case is ripe for trial and to drag on the proceedings, without giving any proper reason, the application was filed, besides there is no specific pleading with regard to the objection for the signature of 2^nd revision petitioner. Therefore, the application was dismissed. Aggrieved over that, the revision petitioners/plaintiffs have preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

3.The learned counsel for Revision Petitioners/plaintiffs would submit that the revision petitioners are the 1^st and 2^nd plaintiffs, who filed the suit and in para 7 of plaint averment, the 2^nd plaintiff has categorically stated that he has not signed in the document as an attestor and the sale deed dated 22.02.2018 is forged one. But, without considering the same, the trial judge erroneously dismissed the application. Hence, he prayed to set aside the findings of trial judge.

4. Heard and considered rival submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

5. On seeing the facts, it reveals that along with the 1^st plaintiff, the 2^nd plaintiff came forward with the suit to cancel the sale deed dated 22.02.2018 vide Document No.483/2018, which was fraudulently obtained from the 1^st plaintiff, who is his wife. On perusal of the plaint pleadings, the 2^nd plaintiff has stated that he has not attested the said document. So, due opportunity is to be given to them and the document is also to be sent to forensic lab to get the expert opinion. If such opportunity is not given, their right to defend the case will be defeated. But, the trial court failed to give such opportunity. Therefore, this Court is inclined to set aside the findings rendered in I.A.No.6 of 2024 in O.S.No.225 of 2019 by the Principal Sub-Judge, Krishnagiri. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The trial judge is directed to appoint an advocate commissioner to send the sale deed dated 22.02.2018 with the signature found in the sale deed dated 24.01.2018, which is a contemporary document to compare the signature of 2^nd plaintiff to the forensic lab in order to get an expert opinion. Thereafter, the trial court is directed to proceed with the matter as per manner known to law. No costs. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.