The respondent / plaintiff has laid the suit for recovery of money against the petitioner / defendant on the basis of a promissory note. The petitioner / defendant has taken a defence in the suit that he had not executed the suit promissory note as put forth by the respondent / plaintiff and thus, according to him, the suit promissory note is not a true document. While so, it is found the petitioner / defendant has preferred an application in I.A.No.187 of 2007 seeking for the comparison of the signature found in the disputed promissory note with his signature found in the income tax returns filed by him prior to the execution of the suit promissory note by an expert and inasmuch as the said application had not been seriously contested by the respondent / plaintiff, it is found that as prayed for by the petitioner / defendant, the Court below had appointed an Advocate Commissioner to submit the documents concerned for expert's opinion. While the matter pending thus, it is found that the respondent / plaintiff has preferred an application in I.A.No.43 of 2011 seeking for comparison of the disputed signature found in the suit promissory note with the signature of the petitioner / defendant found in the partition deed, dated 27.03.2006, executed amongst the family members of the petitioner / defendant and though the said application had not been accepted by the Court below, it is found that this Court, in C.R.P.(PD)(MD) No.1394 of 2011, had directed for comparison of the signature found in the disputed document with the above said partition deed as claimed by the respondent / plaintiff. Pursuant to the said order, it is found that steps have been taken by the Court below to send the original partition deed, dated 27.03.2006, by calling upon the petitioner / defendant to produce the original partition deed for accomplishing the task. However, it is found that the petitioner / defendant had informed the Court below that he is not in the custody of the said partition deed and therefore, he is unable to produce the same. Accordingly, the Court below had directed the respondent / plaintiff to produce the document containing the signatures of the petitioner / defendant for comparison by the expert and inasmuch as the respondent / plaintiff had not produced either the partition deed above mentioned or the other documents containing the signatures of the petitioner / defendant for the purpose of comparison, it is found that I.A.No.43 of 2011 has come to be closed by the Court below and the documents were sent for expert's scrutiny as per the order passed in I.A.No.187 of 2007.
2. When the matter is pending as such, as above discussed, it is found that the Court below had been informed by the Forensic Science Lab of Madurai Unit that on the preliminary examination of the documents submitted, some more admitted English signatures of the petitioner / defendant made in the ordinary course of business of some existing documents like letters, bank records, diary, vouchers, deeds etc., preferably made during 2000 - 2005 and also some specimen signatures of the petitioner / defendant (10 to 20 signatures) as found in the questioned document, be procured and forwarded to the Lab for the purpose of thorough document examination and opinion. It is, therefore, found that as per the above said letter received by the Forensic Science Lab, the Lab has not informed the Court below that they are unable to complete the examination of the disputed document with the income tax returns documents submitted already and on the other hand, they had only informed the Court below that some more documents would also be required for the purpose of thorough document examination and opinion.
3. Following the above said information received from the Lab, it appears that the Court below had directed the petitioner / defendant, whose specimen signatures are sought to be procured and forwarded to the Lab, to produce the said documents as called by the Lab concerned. It is found that the petitioner / defendant had filed a memo in the Court below informing that he is not in the custody of any such document as called for by the Lab and it is further found that a counter memo had been filed by the respondent / plaintiff praying the Court that inasmuch as the petitioner / defendant had not submitted the documents as required by the Lab, the Court should dismiss I.A.No.187 of 2007.
4. It is found that the Court below, on a consideration of the matter, finding that the petitioner / defendant had not submitted the documents as required by the Lab and inasmuch no report could be obtained from the Lab as regards the disputed document with the documents already sent for comparison, dismissed I.A.No.187 of 2007. Impugning the same, the present civil revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner / defendant.
5. As seen above, the Forensic Science Lab has not informed the Court below that they are unable to submit any report as such by comparing the disputed document with the income tax returns submitted already to them. All that they would require is that for the purpose of thorough document examination and opinion, they also requested the Court below to send some more documents containing the signatures of the petitioner / defendant made during 2000 ? 2005. However, as per the memo filed by the petitioner / defendant, it is found that such documents are not available in the custody of the petitioner / defendant as on date and accordingly, it is found that the said documents as required by the Lab could not be forwarded to it. In such view of the matter, as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner / defendant, the Court below should have endeavoured to collect the specimen signatures of the petitioner / defendant as required by the Lab for the purpose of comparison and informed the Lab to send its opinion in one way or the other, on the basis of the documents forwarded to it for comparison. On the other hand, it is found that the Court below had not proceeded in the matter as above found and on the other hand, it is found that the Court below had dismissed the application on the basis of the counter memo filed by the respondent / plaintiff. As seen above, when it is not even the case of the Lab concerned that it is not able to send any opinion at all based on the comparison of the documents already sent by the Court below, it is found that the Court below should not have dismissed the application and on the other hand, should have collected the specimen signatures of the petitioner / defendant as required by the Lab and forwarded the same to the Lab informing that the other documents as required by the Lab are not available with the petitioner / defendant and directing the Lab to give its opinion in one way or the other by comparison of the documents sent with the disputed document. Such being the position, the action of the Court below in dismissing the application itself, which had already been entertained by it, is found to be not correct in the eyes of law. If the Lab had informed the Court below that it would not be able to submit any opinion at all on the basis of the documents already sent by the Court below, the position would be otherwise. On the other hand, all that the Lab had required is that some more documents are also needed for the purpose of thorough document examination and opinion. In such view of the matter, when one piece of the document sought for, namely, the specimen signature of the petitioner / defendant could be collected and forwarded the same to the Lab, as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner / defendant, the Court below should have proceeded in the matter on the above lines and instead of that, the Court's move to dismiss the application as such cannot be sustained in any manner. However, it is argued by the learned counsel for the respondent / plaintiff that no purpose would be served by sending the signature of the petitioner / defendant alone for comparison as the other documents as required by the Lab are not available. It is for the concerned Lab to answer the said issue in one way or the other and the respondent / plaintiff not being expert cannot be allowed to make any such submission without basis of any document. Therefore, the above argument of the learned counsel for the respondent / plaintiff cannot be accepted as such.
6. In the light of the above discussions, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly,
(i) The fair and decreetal orders, dated 11.04.2017, passed in in I.A.No.187 of 2007 in O.S.No.82 of 2007, on the file of the Additional District (Fast Track) Court, Palani, are set aside.
(ii) The Court below, either on receipt or on production of a copy of this order by either of the parties concerned, should collect the specimen signatures of the petitioner / defendant as required by the Lab for the purpose of comparison and send it to the Lab concerned for further examination and opinion informing the Lab that the other documents sought for by it are not available and also directing the Lab to give its opinion in one way or the other on the basis of the documents submitted by the Court for the purpose of comparison.
(iii) Resultantly, the civil revision petition is allowed with costs.
(iv) Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.
To:
The Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Palani.
.