CRP/809/2026 of Mohanraj Vs R. Kosalaraman on 9 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 I.A.No.1 of 2024 in O.S.No.398 of 2019 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Vellore, dated 01.11.2025, wherein, the application filed by the petitioner under Order XXVI Rule 10A, to send the disputed signature in the promissory note dated 08.08.2016 for expert opinion, came to be rejected by the Court below.

2. Heard Ms.L.Leela Raman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.R.T.Sundari, learned counsel for the first respondent.

( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 01:12:03 pm )

CRP No. 809 of 2026

3. The respondents are the plaintiffs, who filed the suit in O.S.No.398 of 2019, seeking for the relief of recovery of money. The suit was filed with a cause of action that the father of the petitioner had borrowed money and had executed a promissory note and the amount was not repaid back. Since he died, the suit was filed as against his son.

4. The defendants filed a written statement and took a stand that there was no loan transaction and that the promissory note is a forged document. In light of the above stand taken by the defendants, I.A.No.1 of 2024 was filed by the defendant for expert opinion after comparing the disputed promissory note with the signature found in the property tax receipts and the receipt issued by the Sub-Inspector of Police, South Police Station, Vellore.

5. The Court below has dismissed this application on the ground that the documents do not belong to the contemporary period and that the documents are not registered documents. Aggrieved by the said order, the present civil revision petition has been filed before this Court.

6. In the considered view of this Court, considering the latest judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Gopal Pathak Vs. Nitin alias Pappu and Anr.1, the Court below can compare the signature between the one found in the promissory note and the admitted documents on the 1 Civil Appeal No.13004 of 2026; decided on 18.09.2026.

( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 01:12:03 pm )

CRP No. 809 of 2026

side of the defendant. For proper appreciation, the relevant portions are extracted hereunder: “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

( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 01:12:03 pm )

CRP No. 809 of 2026

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.” In the above judgment, the Apex Court has held that the Court itself must make the comparison and if ultimately the Court is not able to form an opinion, it can seek for an expert opinion.

7. In light of the above discussion, the Court below is directed to compare the signature between the disputed documents and the admitted documents and form its own opinion. This Civil Revision Petition is disposed of in the above terms. There shall be a direction to the Additional Subordinate Court, Vellore, to dispose of O.S.No.398 of 2019 within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.4331 of 2026 is closed. 09-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No (drm)

( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 01:12:03 pm )

CRP No. 809 of 2026

To:

1. The Additional Subordinate Court, Vellore.

( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 01:12:03 pm )

CRP No. 809 of 2026

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J. (drm) CRP No. 809 of 2026 09-10-2026

( Uploaded on: 13/10/2026 01:12:03 pm )