IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16-03-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI and CMP.Nos.7303 & 7304 of 2026

1. N.Jagathambal W/O. Nachimuthu, No.D-9, Kurichi Housing Unit, Phase - I, Coimbatore -

641021.

Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. Rajkumari W/O. A.Duraiyyan, Care of Kariappan, Sri Srinivasa Paper Share, No.236, Nawab Hakkim Road, Coimbatore -

641001.

2.Sundarabharathi S/o. Senniappan, No.114, Bharthidasan Nagar, Ramanathapuram, Coimbatore.

Madavan (Died)

Respondent(s)

PRAYER Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, praying to set aside the fair and decretal orders dated 23.03.2023 in IA No.1 of 2022 in OS No.1727 of 2006 on the file of II Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.C.R.Prasanan For Respondent(s):

ORDER

Challenging the impugned order passed by the trial Court in I.A. No.1 of

2022 in O.S. No.1727 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore, the petitioner filed an application to send the alleged sale deed dated 10.11.1982 for comparison of the signatures found therein with the admitted signatures of the plaintiff / revision petitioner. The said application was dismissed by the learned trial Judge holding that the thumb impression found in the document had already been sent for expert opinion and the report had been obtained, and after nearly sixteen years the plaintiff has come forward with another application seeking comparison of the signatures, which is not permissible and it would only drag on the proceedings. The Court also observed that the petitioner had not conducted the case with due diligence and therefore dismissed the application.

2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner / plaintiff disputes the signatures found in the alleged sale deed dated 10.11.1982. According to the petitioner, the thumb impression was affixed only in the presence of the Registrar at the time of presentation of the document, but the signatures found on each and every page of the sale deed are disputed. In order to prove the same, the petitioner is in possession of contemporary documents containing admitted signatures, but the earlier counsel failed to state the reasons properly, and therefore only the thumb impression was compared earlier. He further submitted that the petitioner is now ready to produce the contemporary documents for comparison of the signatures, but the Court below, without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances, erroneously dismissed the application.

3. Considering the above submissions and on perusal of the records, it is seen that the plaintiff has approached the Court seeking to compare the disputed signatures found in the sale deed with the admitted signatures. Earlier, the petitioner had filed an application only for comparison of the thumb impression and the report had been obtained, but no comparison was made with regard to the signatures. The suit itself has been filed to declare the alleged sale deed dated 10.11.1982 as null and void on the ground that the signatures do not belong to the plaintiff. The petitioner is also in possession of contemporary documents containing admitted signatures, and therefore an opportunity should be given to prove the case, failing which the right of the petitioner to protect the property would be defeated.

4. The trial Court failed to appreciate these facts and dismissed the application without giving an opportunity to compare the signatures. Such finding is illegal and liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the order passed in I.A.

No.1 of 2022 in O.S. No.1727 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore, is set aside and the application is allowed.

5. The trial Court is directed to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to send the documents for expert opinion, and after obtaining the report, the trial Court shall proceed with the case as expeditiously as possible by giving opportunity to bo