CRP/6484/2026 of Satheskumar Vs Kannan on 9 October 2026

Order

This Civil Revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.3 of 2026 in O.S.No.319 of 2023 wherein the application filed to reopen IA No.2 of 2024, which was closed on 04.02.2026, for getting an expert opinion, came to be rejected by the Court below.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and carefully perused the materials available on record as well as the order passed by the Court below.

3. The respondent is the plaintiff, who filed the suit in OS No.319 of 2023 seeking for the relief of recovery of money on the basis of a promissory note. The petitioners, who are the defendants disputed the signature found in the promissory note and hence, filed IA No.2 of 2024, seeking to send the disputed document for expert opinion. The said application was allowed and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed and he produced the disputed document along with the admitted signature contained in a Sale deed dated 20.09.2022 to the Assistant Director of Tamil Nadu Forensic Department, Mylapore. Subsequently, a memo was filed by the Advocate Commissioner to the effect that the forensic department has returned back the file stating that it requires the admitted signatures of the deceased Balasubramaniam father of the petitioners preferably made between the year 2019-2022. Since the petitioners were not able to produce any further document containing the admitted signatures, IA No.2 of 2024 came to be closed on 04.02.2026.

4. The petitioners thereafter filed an application in IA No.3 of 2026 seeking to reopen IA No.2 of 2024 on the ground that the sale deed that was relied upon itself contained more than 10 signatures of the deceased Bala Subramaniam and the expert can always consider the same and give the opinion.

5. The Court below has dismissed the application only on the ground that the petitioners were not able to produce any further material containing admitted signatures of the deceased Bala Subramaniam. Aggrieved by the same, present Civil Revision Petition has been filed before this Court.

6. The short issue that arises for consideration in the present case is whether the Court below is necessarily required to obtain an expert opinion to compare the disputed signature found in the promissory note with the admitted signature contained in the sale deed dated 20.09.2022. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in its recent judgment in Gopal Pathak v. Mithun @ Pappu and another, in Civil Appeal No.13004 of 2026, dated 18.09.2026, has held as follows:

8. We have heard the parties at length. The short point involved is whether it would be ‘essential’, as has been held by the High Court, to send the document to obtain expert opinion under Section 39 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 for determining the genuineness of the Will or whether the same can be ascertained by comparison in accordance with Section 72 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, which is reproduced hereinbelow:

72. Comparison of signature, writing or seal with others admitted or proved.

(1) In order to ascertain whether a signature, writing or seal is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written or made, any signature, writing, or seal admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written or made by that person may be compared with the one which is to be proved, although that signature, writing or seal has not been produced or proved for any other purpose.

(2) The Court may direct any person present in Court to write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare the words or figures so written with any words or figures alleged to have been written by such person.

(3) This section applies also, with any necessary modifications, to finger impressions.

9. Having considered the matter, we find that the impugned order cannot be sustained.

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

7. It is clear from the above judgement of the Apex Court that the Court below has to compare the disputed document with the admitted document and form an opinion and if the Court is not able to come to a correct conclusion, it will be left open to the Court to seek for an expert

N.ANAND VENKATESH.,J rka opinion. The Apex Court has held that it is not necessary to seek for opinion in all cases where the signature is disputed. The reasoning given by the Apex Court is that the evidence of an expert is only an opinion it is not binding on the Court.

8. In the light of the above judgement, it is left open to the Court below to compare the disputed signature in the promissory note with the admitted signature found in the sale deed dated 20.09.2022 and form an opinion and if ultimately the Court below is not able to form an opinion, the Court below shall resort to the procedure as held by the Apex Court in the judgement cited supra.

9. This Civil Revision Petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 09-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No RKA To The Principal District Judge, Salem

AND CMP NO. 27904 OF 2026