Dismissed¶32

G.Shanmugam v. N.Kanaga

Madras HC2 Dec 2025CRP/543/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: comparison of signatures; expert opinion on disputed signature; contemporaneous document requirement; admitted document Ex.A2 Sale Deed dated 19.04.2007; disputed Sale Agreement dated 07.01.2013; denial of execution by DW.1 (widow of deceased vendor Narkunam); suit for specific performance; I.A.No.4 of 2023 in O.S.No.33 of 2022; Subordinate Judge, Sirkazhi; Article 227 Constitution of India; C.R.P.; Central Bank of India vs. Antony Hardware Mart, 2006 (3) CCC 285 = MANU/TN/2630/2005; Madras High Court; revision dismissed with liberty to seek comparison with contemporaneous document; no costs.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; liberty preserved to the petitioner to seek comparison of the questioned document with any contemporaneous document, if available; no costs awarded. ¶32

G.Shanmugam Vs N.Kanaga — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; liberty preserved to the petitioner to seek comparison of the questioned document with any contemporaneous document, if available; no costs awarded.

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court's dismissal of the petitioner's application for comparison of signatures, on the ground that no contemporaneous document was furnished, involves any material irregularity warranting interference in this Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶28

Court's answer

For the purpose of comparison of signatures, only a contemporaneous document should be pressed into service; the Suit Sale Agreement dated 07.01.2013 and the admitted document produced for comparison dated 19.04.2007 are not contemporaneous, hence comparison of the signature in the questioned document is not possible.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

Relying on the Division Bench ruling in Central Bank of India vs. Antony Hardware Mart (2006 (3) CCC 285 = MANU/TN/2630/2005) that comparison shall be done only with the contemporaneous document, this Court finds no material irregularity in the Trial Court's order in I.A.No.4 of 2023 in O.S.No.33 of 2022 dated 21.09.2023.

¶28

Key takeaways

The dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition will not stand in the way of the petitioner seeking comparison of the questioned document with any contemporaneous document, if available with the petitioner.obiter¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (S. Sounthar, J.), C.R.P.No.543 of 2024 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, decided 02.12.2025 — Civil Revision Petition challenging the order dated 21.09.2023 of the Subordinate Judge, Sirkazhi in I.A.No.4 of 2023 in O.S.No.33 of 2022 DISMISSED. Background: suit for specific performance of a Sale Agreement dated 07.01.2013 executed by Narkunam (since deceased); his widow, the respondent, as DW.1 denied the signature in the Suit Sale Agreement; the petitioner sought comparison of that signature with Narkunam's admitted signature in the Sale Deed in his favour (Ex.A2, dated 19.04.2007), and the Trial Court dismissed the application for want of a contemporaneous document. Held: for comparison of signatures only a contemporaneous document should be pressed into service; the disputed Sale Agreement (07.01.2013) and the admitted document (19.04.2007) are not contemporaneous, so comparison of the questioned signature is not possible, and the Trial Court committed no material irregularity — reliance placed on the Division Bench decision in Central Bank of India and others vs. Antony Hardware Mart and others, 2006 (3) CCC 285 = MANU/TN/2630/2005. It was made clear that the dismissal will not prevent the petitioner from seeking comparison with any contemporaneous document, if available. No costs.

¶1

C.R.P.No.543 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 02.12.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

¶6

C.R.P.No.543 of 2024

G.Shanmugam

... Petitioner

vs.

N.Kanaga ... Respondent

¶11

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the order dated 21.09.2023 made in I.A.No.4 of 2023 in O.S.No.33 of 2022 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Sirkazhi.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ganesh

¶13

For Respondent : Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by

¶16

the Subordinate Judge, Sirkazhi in I.A.No.4 of 2023 in O.S.No.33 of 2022,

¶17

1/6

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

C.R.P.No.543 of 2024

¶20

dated 21.09.2023 dismissing the application filed by the petitioner seeking comparison of the signature found in the disputed Sale Agreement with the signature found in the admitted document.

¶21

The petitioner herein filed a suit for Specific Performance of Sale Agreement dated 07.01.2013. The Sale Agreement was entered into between the petitioner and husband of the respondent. Subsequently, the Agreement Vendor-Narkunam died. Therefore, a suit was laid against his wife, the respondent herein.

¶22

When respondent was examined as DW.1, she specifically denied the signature found in the Suit Sale Agreement. Therefore, the instant application has been filed seeking comparison of the signature of Narkunam found in Suit Sale Agreement with the admitted signature of Narkunam found in the Sale Deed in his favour, marked as Ex.A2. The said application was dismissed by the Trial Court on the ground that the petitioner failed to furnish any contemporaneous document. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this Court.

¶23

2/6

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

C.R.P.No.543 of 2024

¶26

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that

¶27

the execution of Suit Sale Agreement is denied by the respondent. Therefore, an Expert opinion regarding the signature found in the disputed document will be helpful to the Court to decide the lis .

¶28

It is settled law for the purpose of comparison of the signature, contemporaneous document should be pressed into service. In the case on hand, the Suit Sale Agreement dated 07.01.2013 and the admitted document produced by the petitioner for comparison was dated 19.04.2007. Since petitioner failed to produce the contemporaneous admitted document, the comparison of the signature found in the questioned document is not at all possible. Infact, a Division Bench of this Court in Central Bank of India and others vs. Antony Hardware Mart and others reported in 2006 (3) CCC 285 = MANU/TN/2630/2005 held that comparison shall be done only with the contemporaneous document. In view of the same, I do not find any material irregularity in the order passed by the Trial Court in I.A.No.4 of 2023 in O.S.No.33 of 2022, dated 21.09.2023 .

¶29

3/6

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

C.R.P.No.543 of 2024

¶32

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. It is

¶33

made clear that the dismissal of this civil revision petition will not come in

¶34

the way of petitioner seeking comparison of the questioned document with any contemporaneous document, if it is available with the petitioner. No costs.

¶35

02.12.2025

¶36

Index : Yes / No Speaking order : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No dm

¶37

4/6

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

C.R.P.No.543 of 2024

¶40

¶41