The Madras High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an order allowing an Advocate Commissioner to inspect documents for handwriting verification in a specific performance suit involving a disputed sale agreement and collateral criminal charges.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed; no costs awarded; connected miscellaneous petition closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.R.P.(MD)No.658 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Date of Reserving the Judgment Date of Pronouncing the Judgment 28.03.2023 06.04.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
C.R.P.(MD)No.658 of 2023 and
C.M.P.(MD)No.3070 of 2023
Mars Raja, S/o.Ragunathan
... Petitioner
vs.
Thenmozhi, W/o.Nagesh @ Kanthavelu
... Respondent
Prayer :- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the docket order dated 22.07.2022, passed in I.A.No.61 of 2022 in O.S.No.54 of 2014, on the file of the Additional District Court, Pudukkottai.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Paranjothi
For Respondent : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar
ORDER
The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned docket order dated 22.07.2022, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Pudukkottai, allowing I.A.No.61 of 2022 in O.S.No.54 of 2014, filed under Order XXVI Rule 10 and 10-A
of C.P.C. The operative portion of the impugned order reads as under:-
1/10
C.R.P.(MD)No.658 of 2023
''5. kDjhuH kw;Wk; vjpHkDjhuH jug;G thJiu Nfl;fg;gl;lJ. kD> vjpUiu kw;Wk; tof;fhtzq;fs; ghprPyid nra;ag;gl;ld. kDjhuH/gpujpthjp jug;gpy;> thjp jug;gpy; th.rh.M.1 Mf FwpaPL nra;ag;gl;Ls;s 30.06.2012k; Njjpapl;l fpiua xg;ge;jk; vd;w Mtzj;jpy; Nkw;gb Mtzj;ij vOjpf; nfhLj;Js;sjhff; fz;Ls;s 'Njd;nkhop” vd;w ifnahg;gq;fisAk; mjd; 3k; gf;fk; rhl;rpahf cs;s 'fe;jNtY” vd;W nra;ag;gl;Ls;s ifnahg;gj;ijAk; kDjhuH/gpujpthjp jug;gpy; Vw;fdNt I.v.ek;gH 85/2018 kDTld; jhf;fy; nra;Js;s Mtzq;fs; kw;Wk; thjpia FWf;F tprhuiz nra;j rkak; gpujpthjp jug;G rhd;whtzq;fshf Vw;fdNt FwpaPL nra;ag;gl;Ls;s gp1 kw;Wk; gp2 Mfpa Mtzq;fs; kw;Wk; jw;rkak; jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;Ls;s jhthr; nrhj;J rk;ge;jg;gl;l mry; fpiuag; gj;jpuk; Mfpatw;wpy; cs;s gpujpthjp 'Njd;nkhop” kw;Wk; mtuJ fztH fe;jNtYtpd; xg;Gf; nfhs;sg;gl;l (Admitted Signatures) ifnahg;gq;fSld; xg;gpl;L th.rh.M.1y; cs;s Njd;nkhop vd;w ifnahg;gk; gpujpthjpapd; ifnahg;gkh? vd;gJ Fwpj;Jk; th.rh.M.1y; 3k; gf;fk; rhl;rpahf fe;jNtY vd;W nra;ag;gl;Ls;s ifnahg;gk; gpujpthjpapd; fztH fe;jNtYtpd; ifnahg;gkh? vd;gJ Fwpj;Jk; mwpf;if jhf;fy; nra;a VJthf xU ePjpkd;w MizaH %yk; ifnaOj;J epGeUf;F mDg;gp itf;f jf;f cj;juT toq;ff; Nfhhp ,k;kD jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ. vjpUiuapid ghprPyid nra;Ak; NghJ mjpy; ,e;j kDgpukhzg; gj;jphpf;ifapd; rq;fjpfis kWf;Fk;gbahd fUj;Jf;fs; vJTk; nrhy;yg;gltpy;iy. NkYk; gpujhd tof;fhdJ Vw;wij Mw;Wjy; ghpfhuj;jpw;fhf jhf;fyhfp cs;sJ. mjw;F kDjhuH/gpujpthjpahy; vjpHkDjhuH/thjpf;F vOjpf; nfhLf;fg;gl;ljhf thjp jug;gpy; $wg;gLk; fpiua xg;ge;jk; jhd; Kf;fpa MtzkhFk;. vdNt ,e;j gpujhd tof;ifg; nghWj;J ,Wjp KbT va;Jtjw;F Nkw;gb Mtzj;jpd; cz;ik jd;ikia mwpa Ntz;baJ mtrpakhFk;. ,e;j kDit mDkjpg;gjhy; vt;tpjj;jpy;
2/10
C.R.P.(MD)No.658 of 2023
ghjpg;G Vw;gLk; vd;W Nghjpa rhl;rpa rhd;whtzq;fs; %ykhf vjpHkDjhuH/thjp jug;gpy; ep&gpf;fg;gltpy;iy. kDjhuH Vw;fdNt I.v.85/2018 jhf;fy; nra;J jpUk;gg; ngwg;gl;bUg;gpDk;> me;j kD ,U jug;Gk; Nfl;L Kbf;fg;gltpy;iy vd;gjhYk; jw;nghOJ $Ljy; Mtzq;fs; jhf;fy; nra;jpUg;gjhYk; ePjpapd; nghUl;Lk;> fpiua xg;ge;jk; th.rh.M.1d; cz;ikj; jd;ikia mwpa ,e;j kDit mDkjpf;fyhk; vd;W ,e;ePjpkd;wk; KbT nra;J ,e;j gpur;rpidf;F jPHT fhz;fpwJ.
3/10
C.R.P.(MD)No.658 of 2023
cj;jputplg;gLfpwJ. miof;f ehs;.23.08.2022.''
by the petitioner for specific performance of an application purportedly in an agreement signed by the respondent/defendant on 30.06.2012. The respondent/defendant has denied the execution of the aforesaid agreement, dated 30.06.2012.
4/10
C.R.P.(MD)No.658 of 2023
30.06.2012 was made in the Written Statement. It was, therefore, incumbent on the part of the petitioner/plaintiff to have filed an application for appointing an Advocate Commissioner for comparison of signature from a handwriting expert earlier. It is submitted that in the collateral criminal proceeding filed by the Inspector of Police is pending before the Judicial Magistrate-I, Pudukottai, in C.C.No.174 of 2019 against the petitioner/plaintiff and another accused on a complaint by the respondent/defendant, a statement under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C. of Kumar, Assistant Director and Document Expert, Forensic Department, Madurai, was recorded, wherein it was confirmed that the signature in the aforesaid agreeement dated 30.06.2012, varied and therefore, on an earlier occasion I.A.No.85 of 2018 which was filed was withdrawn. It is submitted that the challenge to the proceedings in C.C.No.174 of 2019 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Pudukottai, by one Senthilkumar/A2 has also been dismissed on 16.02.2023, in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16970 of 2019.
5/10
C.R.P.(MD)No.658 of 2023
emerged:-
''32. From the above judgments, the following principles have emerged:-
(2) It is always safe for the court to take the aid of handwriting expert to have the expertise to scientifically compare such handwriting with reasons.
(3) The practice of sending original documents in the custody of the courts to the handwriting experts is a highly objectionable one and a very very bad procedure.
(4) The proper procedure would be to permit the handwriting expert to inspect the document in the court premises itself in the presence of some responsible officers of the court.
(5) If necessary, the expert may be permitted to have photographic copies of documents in the presence of the responsible officers of the court.
(6) When examination of the disputed documents within the court's premises, is not possible due to genuine difficulties expressed by the expert, the court has to find out the alternative way of achieving the object for the purpose of doing justice.
(7) In such circumstances as mentioned above, the application has to be treated as an application for an appointment of the commissioner in whose presence the examination of the disputed document has to be conducted by the expert.
(8) When the investigation cannot be conveniently conducted within the premises of the court and the same has to be carried out in the laboratory of the Forensic Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu, it is necessary to appoint a commissioner to conduct the investigation of the document in his presence.
(9) Filing application for examination of documents by handwriting expert at a late stage thereby protracting and holding up the proceedings is highly objectionable.
(10) Merely because of the reasons that the trial court has by itself compared the admitted signature and the disputed signature invoking Sec.73 of the Indian Evidence Act there is no bar or ban for the first appellate court for sending the documents to get the expert opinion.
6/10
C.R.P.(MD)No.658 of 2023
(11) Expert opinions could give much more clarity for arriving at a decision upon the truth and genuineness of a disputed document.
7/10
C.R.P.(MD)No.658 of 2023
against the petitioner and another person was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Pudukkottai, in C.C.No.174 of 2019. In the said proceedings, it stands prima facie confirmed that the signatures in the above said agreement were in variance with the admitted signature.
8/10
C.R.P.(MD)No.658 of 2023
22.07.2022, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Pudukkottai, allowing I.A.No.61 of 2022 in O.S.No.54 of 2014. The petitioner cannot be said to be an
aggrieved person by the impugned order.
No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No 06.04.2023 Internet : Yes / No smn2 To
The Additional District Judge, Pudukkottai.
9/10
C.R.P.(MD)No.658 of 2023
C.SARAVANAN, J.
smn2
PRE-DELIVERY ORDER MADE IN C.R.P.(MD)No.658 of 2023
DATED : 06.04.2023
10/10
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Civil Revision Petitioner is entitled to challenge the order allowing an Advocate Commissioner to compare disputed signatures under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act?
Whether the delay in applying for appointment of a handwriting expert bars the exercise of discretionary power by the court?
Whether a prima facie variance in signatures noted in collateral criminal proceedings precludes the requirement of expert opinion in the civil suit?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P.Sood and company Vs.Peerchand Misrimalji BhansaliReferred¶40
P.Sood and company Vs.Peerchand Misrimalji Bhansali reported in 2005 (3) CTC 12
N.Chinnasamy Vs P.S.SwaminathanReferred¶40
N.Chinnasamy Vs P.S.Swaminathan reported in 2006 (4) CTC 850
S.Chinnathai Vs K.C.ChinnaduraiReferred¶61
S.Chinnathai Vs K.C.Chinnadurai reported in (2010) 3 MLJ 65
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mars Raja, S/o.Ragunathan
Thenmozhi, W/o.Nagesh @ Kanthavelu
C.Saravanan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
C.Saravanan
Parties & counsel
