Judgment:
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to set aside the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.1333 of 2006 in O.S.No.1840 of 2005, dated 27.8.2009, on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Madurai Town.)
1. This revision has been filed seeking for a direction to set aside the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.1333 of 2006 in O.S.No.1840 of 2005, dated 27.8.2009, on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Madurai Town.
2. According to the Petitioner, the respondent herein has filed the above suit in O.S.No.1840 of 2005 for recovery of a sum of Rs.90,000/- with interest at 12% p.a from the date of plaint till the date of realization and for costs. In the aforesaid suit, the revision petitioner has filed the above application in I.A.No.1333 of 2006 under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act 1 of 1872 as amended Act IV of 2003 and section 151 C.P.C to send the declaration deed dated 22.8.2005 with admitted documents to the Handwriting Expert of Forensic Laboratory at Chennai through Commissioner/Advocate for comparison of forged signature in declaration deed along with admitted signature in the documents produced by the Petitioner/defendant and to get the report and opinion. Hence the present Civil Revision Petition is filed to decide the controversy arose in the said signature contained in the document. The said I.A application was dismissed by the trial Court for the reason that the Court itself has the power to compare the signature. The Petitioner has produced the following two documents namely(1) Unregistered deed of sale agreement, dated 1.1.2004 entered into between the Petitioner and one P.L.Vidhya Poornachari and (2) petition forwarded to the Assistant Engineer, Electricity Board containing the signature of the Petitioner therein. The said documents were objected by the respondent that it was only for the petitioner who has signed the document and it cannot be accepted since the said documents are unregistered and they have no authentication for comparison. Therefore in view of the objection made by the learned counsel for the respondent, the said application was dismissed by the Court below.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the Court below has rejected the said application that these two documents produced by the revision petitioner cannot be accepted since the said documents are unregistered and have no authentication for comparison and another one is the petition forwarded to the Assistant Engineer, Electricity Board containing the signature of the Petitioner and these documents have no genuineness for comparing the signature. Therefore by taking into consideration of the submission made by both parties, since the above said documents produced by the revision petitioner has no authentication, the said documents cannot be relied upon for comparison of the signature in the disputed document, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the said application. Therefore this Court does not warrant any interference in the order of the Court below in the absence of any authenticated or genuine document produced by the Petitioner.
4. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner produced the copy of the statement issued by the Madurai Sourashtra Cooperative Bank Limited, in which the cheque of the revision petitioner submitted to the bank for clearance and cheque number was also found in the statement. Therefore the revision petitioner seeks liberty to file appropriate application before the Court below to prove the petitioner/defendant's case that the alleged deed executed by the revision petitioner/defendant is not a genuine one. Hence at this stage, this Court cannot go into the genuineness of the above said documents.
5. In view of the above, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. It is open to the Petitioner to file appropriate application, if so advised, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If any such application being filed, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the same, on merits and in accordance with law. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petitions are dismissed. No costs.