The revision petitioner / plaintiff preferred an application, under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, to send the documents marked as Exs.Q1 to Q6 and A22 to A29 to the Forensic Science Department, Chennai, for expert opinion.
2. As seen from the materials placed, it is found that the revision petitioner/ plaintiff had already preferred an application to send the same set of documents to the Forensic Science Department, Madurai and the Madurai Unit has sent a report stating that the documents have been carefully and thoroughly examined by the experts in the laboratory and however, it is not possible to offer reliable opinion on the signatures marked as Exs.Q1 to Q6 and the signatures marked as Exs.A22 to A29. Therefore, it is found that already a report has been received from the Madurai Unit of the Forensic Science Department and thereafter, the present application has came to be preferred by the plaintiff to send the same set of documents to the Madras Unit of the Forensic Science Department. However, as rightly determined by the Court below, when the Madurai Unit of the Forensic Science Department had already submitted a report as stated above, there is no necessity to make one more comparison by the Madras Unit of the Forensic Science Department, and therefore, the attempt of the revision petitioner is nothing but to delay the proceedings endlessly and suit having come to be laid in the year 2009, it cannot be stalled by way of this application preferred one after the other.
3. In view of the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered opinion that the Court below has rightly discountenanced the application preferred by the revision petitioner and the impugned order does not call for any interference from this Court.
4. Resultantly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.
To:
The III Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli.
.