The revision is directed against the order refusing to send the suit promissory note to an expert for comparison of the signature. Even in the prayer, the defendant who is the revision petitioner herein, has asked for comparison of the signature(s) by the handwriting expert with the document(s) that may be furnished by him. However, admittedly, no document(s) was filed. Excepting the vakalat, written statement and the counter affidavit filed by the defendant in the proceedings, no other documents contemporaneous to the suit promissory note, had been produced for comparison of the signature. It is settled law that the signature(s) found in the vakalat, written statement or any other affidavit, which are subsequent to the filing of the suit, cannot be compared. The learned trial Judge who has passed the impugned order, has also compared the signature(s), and has opined that the signature(s) found in the vakalat and written statement, are different from each other and also observed that the defendant had signed differently in both the documents. As there are no other document produced by the defendant containing his signatures, though the relief could be granted, the learned trial Judge has dismissed the application. Even pending revision, the revision petitioner/defendant has not produced any document that may be sent for comparison of the signature with the suit pro-note. Therefore, this Court has to confirm the impugned order passed by the trial Court for the reason that the revision petitioner is not bona-fide in his attempt. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. The Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
02.02.2017 cs Copy to The District Judge-2, Kancheepuram.
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J cs C.R.P.(PD).No.1313 of 2014 02.02.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in