CRP(MD)/2524/2026 of B.S.Sundaravadivel Sons Vs B.A.Balavadivel Murugan on 11 September 2026

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order, dated 16/07/2026 passed in I.A.No.7 of 2026 in O.S.No.1672 of 2012 by the II Additional District Munsif Court, Trichy, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Section 39 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act), read with Order XXVI Rule 13 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The said application was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff seeking to send the alleged Power of Attorney deed, dated 03/07/2012 marked as Ex.A3, the certified copy of the written statement filed in O.S.No.116 of 2013 on 22/12/2014 in the name of the second defendant/B.S.Anandan before the III Additional District Court, Trichy, and the Vakalath marked as Ex.A20, executed on 29/10/2021 in the names of the second defendant/B.S.Anandan and the first defendant/B.A.Balavadivel Murugan, to a handwriting expert through an Advocate/Commissioner for comparison of the signature of the second defendant found in Ex.A3 with the signatures contained in the other documents and for obtaining an expert opinion as to whether the said signatures were made by the same person.

3. According to the petitioner/plaintiff, the alleged Power of Attorney executed by the second defendant/B.S.Anandan in favour of the first defendant/B.A.Balavadivel Murugan has been marked as Ex.A3. The petitioner also produced the certified copy of the written statement filed in the name of the second defendant in O.S.No.116 of 2013. During the cross-examination of DW1, the difference between the signatures found in Ex.A3 and the written statement was put to him. DW1 stated that both the documents were signed by the second defendant. However, he also stated that he was not aware of the differences in the signatures. It is further stated that DW1 had deposed that the second defendant had informed before this Court that, due to his age, there were variations in his signature.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner/plaintiff that during his cross-examination on 10/02/2026, DW1 stated, he has no objection to sending Ex.A3 and the written statement filed in the name of the second defendant for expert opinion. According to the petitioner, since the signatures attributed to the same person in different judicial records materially differ, an expert opinion is necessary for proper adjudication of the dispute relating to the genuineness of Ex.A3. It is also stated that the second defendant did not enter the witness box in the connected suit in O.S.No.116 of 2013 and did not adopt the written statement filed by the first defendant.

5. The said application was opposed by the first defendant before the trial Court. According to him, the petitioner has no locus standi to question the signature of the second defendant in the Power of Attorney deed. It is stated that the second defendant, who is the father of the first defendant executed the Power of Attorney in favour of the first defendant, pursuant to which the first defendant took charge of the partnership firm. It is further stated that thereafter, the first defendant found certain alleged misappropriation committed by the petitioner and therefore, the second defendant instituted O.S.No.1603 of 2012 for rendition of accounts, which is pending. It is the further contention of the first defendant that the petitioner has approached the Court after several years by raising a dispute regarding Ex.A3 and has also filed several interlocutory applications, thereby delaying the proceedings. It is contended that the validity of the signature in the Power of Attorney is essentially a matter between the principal and the agent and that the petitioner, being a third party, has no right to dispute the signature of the principal and prayed for the dismissal of the petition.

6. The trial Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the application, by order dated 16/07/2026. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

8. The petitioner has filed the suit seeking a declaration that the Power of Attorney deed, dated 03/07/2012 executed by the second defendant in favour of the first defendant is null and void. Admittedly, the second defendant is the father of the first defendant.

9. The specific case of the first defendant is that his father executed the Power of Attorney under Ex.A3, pursuant to which he took charge of the partnership firm and subsequently instituted O.S.No.1603 of 2012 on the file of the III Additional District Munsif Court, Trichy.

10. The second defendant, who is admittedly the executant of Ex.A3, has not come forward to dispute the execution of the Power of Attorney or deny the signature found therein. In the absence of any such dispute by the alleged executant himself, the petitioner, who is a third party to the Power of Attorney, cannot seek to have the signature of the second defendant compared by an expert merely on the basis of an alleged variation in the signatures found in other documents.

11. This Court is of the view that the execution of the Power of Attorney is essentially a matter between the principal and the agent. Unless the principal himself disputes the execution of the document or denies the signature attributed to him, a third party cannot, in the absence of any other legally sustainable basis, seek an expert opinion to establish that the document was not executed by the principal.

12. Further, as rightly pointed out by the trial Court, the petitioner has not produced any contemporaneous document containing the admitted signature of the second defendant pertaining to the relevant period for effective comparison. The documents relied upon by the petitioner, namely, the alleged Power of Attorney deed dated 03/07/2012 and the certified copy of the written statement filed in O.S.No.116 of 2013 on 22/12/2014 do not establish a sufficient basis for sending the documents for expert examination.

13. In the above circumstances, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

14. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission itself. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

11.09.2026 Index;Yes/No Internet:Yes/No er

To

1. The II Additional District Munsif Court, Trichy.

2. The Section Officer, VR/ER Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

R.POORNIMA, J. er C.R.P.(MD)No.2524 of 2026 11/09/2026