CRP/1321/2024 of M.MARIAPPAN Vs BABU on 14 October 2026

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order passed in IA.No.3/2023 in OS.N0. 137/2019, dated 10.11.2023, on the file of the

CRP No. 1321 of 2024 Principal Sub Court, Dharmapuri, wherein the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff seeking expert opinion by comparing the signatures in the disputed documents Ex.A.1, Ex.A.2 and Ex.A.3 with the admitted signature found in Ex.A.7 and to submit a report, came to be rejected by the Court below.

2. This Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the materials available on record and also went through the order passed by the Court below.

3. Notice has been served with the respondents and the names of the respondents have also been printed in the cause list. There is no appearance either in person or through counsel.

4. The petitioner is the plaintiff who filed the suit in OS.No.137 of 2019, seeking for the relief of specific performance. The trial commenced and certain documents were marked on the side of the plaintiff. The respondents/defendants had denied three agreements which were marked as Ex.A.1, Ex.A.2 and Ex.A.3 on the ground that the signature found therein is a forgery. However, they have admitted the signature found in the sale deed which was marked as Ex.A.7. In the light of this stand taken by the respondents, the petitioner filed the application seeking expert opinion with respect to the signatures found in Ex.A.1, Ex.A.2 and Ex.A.3. The petitioner/plaintiff wanted

CRP No. 1321 of 2024 the signature found in these documents to be compared with the signature found in the admitted document marked as Ex.A.7.

5. The Court below has dismissed the application mainly on the ground that the defendants have taken such a stand and the burden of proof is upon the defendants to establish the same and it is not necessary for the plaintiff to undertake this exercise. That apart, the expert opinion is only a relevant fact which does not ultimately decide the final decision taken by the Court in the main suit.

6. In the considered view of this Court, the agreements relied upon by the petitioner/plaintiff forms the basis for seeking for the relief of specific performance. Fortunately there is an admitted document viz., Ex.A.7, which is not disputed by the defendants. Therefore, the signature found in Ex.A.7 can be compared with the disputed signatures in Ex.A.1, Ex.A.2 and Ex.A.3. The question is as to whether it will require sending the documents for expert opinion.

7. The Apex Court in Gopal Pathak v. Nitin Alias Pappu & Anr, in Civil Appeal No(s). 13004/2026 dated 18.9.2026,held as follows:

10. This Court is of the view that the law gives discretion to the Court concerned to form an opinion as to whether it

CRP No. 1321 of 2024 would itself compare the signatures on its own or seek an expert opinion.

11. This Court is further of the view that it is the duty of the Court to compare the signature or writing and come to its own conclusion and the same cannot be avoided by recourse to a statement that the Court is not an expert. In fact, the evidence of an expert is only an opinion which is not binding on the Court. Consequently, the finding of the High Court that obtaining expert opinion under Section 39 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 is essential for determining the genuineness of the Will is untenable in law. However, the Court has full discretion to seek expert opinion like where it has any doubt or the writing/impression is smudgy, vague or very light.

12. Furthermore, what was disputed and compared in Thiruvengada Pillai v. Navaneethammal & Anr. (2008) 4 SCC 530, was a finger impression and not a handwriting or signature. This Court is therefore of the view that the observation of this Court at paragraph no. 16 of judgment in Thiruvengada Pillai v. Navaneethammal & Anr. (2008) 4 SCC 530 cannot be read to mean that it is essential to examine an expert witness in all cases which involve a disputed handwriting/signature/finger impression.

8. In view of the above, the Trial Court has to first assess for itself the disputed signatures and the admitted signature and form an opinion. If the Trial Court is not able to form such an opinion, the documents can be sent for expert opinion for getting a report. Hence, it is left open to the Trial Court to compare the signatures in Ex.A.1, Ex.A.2 and Ex.A.3 with the admitted signature in

CRP No. 1321 of 2024 Ex.A.7. If the Trial Court is able to come to an opinion, a finding can be rendered accordingly. If the Trial Court finds it difficult to form an opinion, the Trial Court can be send the disputed documents and the admitted document for expert opinion. This clarification will sufficiently take care of the interest of the petitioner.

9. In the light of the above discussion, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of in the above terms and there shall be a direction to the Principal Sub Court, Dharmapuri, to dispose of the suit in OS.No.137 of 2019, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

10. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 14-10-2026 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No kp To The Principal Sub Court, Dharmapuri.

CRP No. 1321 of 2024 N.ANAND VENKATESH J. kp CRP No. 1321 of 2024

14-10-2026