Mahalakshmi vs Jeyamarry

Court
Madras High Court

CRP(MD) Nos. 961 & 962 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 28-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJNISH PATHIYIL
CRP(MD) Nos. 961 & 962 of 2024
and
C.M.P(MD)Nos.5195 & 5200 of 2024
CNR:{HCMD010346322024}
CRP(MD) No. 961 of 2024:
Mahalakshmi
W/o.Muthukumar,
D.No.5/295, South Street,
Keppulingampatti,
Azhiyanallur Village,
Kariapatti Taluk,
Virudhunagar District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
Jeyamarry
W/o.Selvakumaresan,
D.No.17/33, R.C.South Street,
Sattur town,
Virudhunagar District.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed in
I.A.No.3 of 2024 in O.S.No.32 of 2023 on the file of the Subordinate
Court, Sattur dated 06.03.2024 and allow the revision.
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.C.Jeya Prakash
For Respondent(s) : Mr.A.S.Vaigunth
__________
Page  1  of  10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:11:10 pm )

CRP(MD) Nos. 961 & 962 of 2024
CRP(MD) No. 962 of 2024:
Mahalakshmi
W/o.Muthukumar,
D.No.5/295, South Street,
Keppulingampatti,
Azhiyanallur Village,
Kariapatti Taluk,
Virudhunagar District.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
Jeyamarry
W/o.Selvakumaresan,
D.No.17/33, R.C.South Street,
Sattur town,
Virudhunagar District.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed in
I.A.No.3 of 2024 in O.S.No.33 of 2023 on the file of the Subordinate
Court, Sattur dated 06.03.2024 and allow the revision
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.C.Jeya Prakash
For Respondent(s) : Mr.A.S.Vaigunth
COMMON ORDER
These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed challenging the
order dated 06.03.2024 passed in I.A.No.3 of 2024 in O.S.No.32 of 2023
and I.A.No.3 of 2024 in O.S.No.33 of 2023 on the file of the Sub Court,
Sattur.
__________
Page  2  of  10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:11:10 pm )

CRP(MD) Nos. 961 & 962 of 2024
2. The petitioner, who is the defendant in O.S.Nos.32 and 33 of
2023, took out the petitions under Section 151 CPC read with Order
XXVI Rule 10-A CPC to send the promissory notes which are relied
upon in the suits seeking for recovery of money, i.e., the promissory
notes dated 12.03.2022 as well as 16.11.2022, to be compared with the
signatures found in the sale deed dated 25.04.2023, claimed to be
contemporaneous documents.
3. The trial Court, for the reasons assigned in the orders impugned,
rejected the contentions. As against which, the petitioner/defendant has
filed these revisions.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that
there had been transactions in the past between the respondent/plaintiff
and the petitioner/defendant and that the plaintiff's husband had executed
a sale deed in favour of the defendant on 25.04.2023, which was also
registered as Document No.2786 of 2023. In the meanwhile, the
respondent/plaintiff had instituted suits in O.S.Nos.32 and 33 of 2023 on
the file of the Sub Court, Sattur, as against the petitioner/defendant and
sought for recovery of sums of Rs.8,00,000/- and Rs.9,00,000/-
respectively.
__________
Page  3  of  10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:11:10 pm )

CRP(MD) Nos. 961 & 962 of 2024
5. The petitioner/defendant, in the written statement, disputed the
signatures found in the pro-notes, which is the basis on which the suits
were instituted and accordingly took out the aforesaid petitions in
I.A.No.3 of 2024 in O.S.No.32 of 2023 and I.A.3 of 2024 in O.S.No.33
of 2023, seeking for comparison of the signatures found in the admitted
sale deed dated 25.04.2023, executed by the respondent/plaintiff's
husband in favour of the petitioner/defendant, with those found on the
promissory notes. However, the trial Court found that the signatures are
not of the same period and hence rejected the request to send the
signatures for examination by an expert.
6. This reason appears to be obviously incorrect for the reason that
the sale deed is dated 25.04.2023, whereas the promissory notes are dated
12.03.2022 and 16.11.2022 respectively. The same cannot be said to be
far apart, rather, these documents are comparable, for the reason that they
are contemporaneous in nature. Hence, the reason assigned by the trial
Court for not allowing the petitions appears to be incorrect. The other
reason assigned by the trial Court is that the signatures could be
compared by the trial Court itself, as provided under Sections 45, 47 and
73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
__________
Page  4  of  10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:11:10 pm )

CRP(MD) Nos. 961 & 962 of 2024
7. The trial Court referred to a judgment of this Court reported in
2018 (1) CTC 441 in the case of Rosali Vs. Syndicate Bank, Mylapore,
and came to the conclusion that comparison by the naked eye is also
permissible as provided under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872. The signatures found in the vakalat and written statement cannot be
the only basis for comparison. Though the Indian Evidence Act, 1872,
provides for comparison of a disputed signature by the Court itself, it is
always safe to rely upon the opinion of an expert.
8. In the present case, there are documents which are
contemporaneous in nature and the sale deed is also admitted, as the
respondent/plaintiff's husband executed the same in favour of the
petitioner/defendant. Therefore, in the facts of the present case, the
reasoning of the trial Court that the sale deed is not a contemporary
document appears to be incorrect. Therefore, the trial Court has erred in
passing the orders rejecting the petitions.
9. At the time of admission of the Civil Revision Petition, this
Court had directed by Orders dated 16.04.2024 that further proceedings
in O.S.Nos.32 and 33 of 2023 could go on, but the final judgment should
not be pronounced until further Orders.
__________
Page  5  of  10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:11:10 pm )

CRP(MD) Nos. 961 & 962 of 2024
10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit
that the suits are ripe for the delivery of judgment, but for the limited stay
granted by this Court. He would also submit that, by adopting the
procedure contemplated under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872, the Court is competent to verify the signatures in the admitted as
well as disputed documents and the re-course to sending the document for
an expert opinion would only defeat and delay the disposal of the suits.
11. In the present circumstances, the objective appears to be only
to delay the disposal of the suits. This Court does not agree with the said
contention for the reason that I.A.No.3 of 2024 and I.A.No.3 of 2024
was filed immediately after O.S.Nos.32 and 33 of 2023 were instituted
and therefore, the petitioner/defendant cannot be faulted for having
caused any delay.
12 . The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in State (Delhi Administration)
v. Pali Ram, (1979) 2 SCC 158 , while dealing with the power of the
Court under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, sounded a note
of caution against the Court undertaking the comparison of handwriting
by itself, and held as follows:
__________
Page  6  of  10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:11:10 pm )

CRP(MD) Nos. 961 & 962 of 2024
“The matter can be viewed from another angle, also. Although
there is no legal bar to the Judge using his own eyes to
compare the disputed writing with the admitted writing, even
without the aid of the evidence of any handwriting expert, the
Judge should, as a matter of prudence and caution, hesitate to
base his finding with regard to the identity of a handwriting
which forms the sheet-anchor of the prosecution case against a
person accused of an offence, solely on comparison made by
himself. It is, therefore, not advisable that a Judge should take
upon himself the task of comparing the admitted writing with
the disputed one to find out whether the two agree with each
other; the prudent course is to obtain the opinion and
assistance of an expert.”
The power conferred on the Court under Section 73 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872, does not mean that the Court can step into the shoes
of a handwriting expert. Where the disputed document is the very
foundation of the case, the Court must exercise extreme caution before
rendering a finding solely on the basis of its own comparison.
13 . The same principle was reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Thiruvengada Pillai v. Navaneethammal and another, (2008) 4
SCC 530 , wherein it was held as follows:
“16. While there is no doubt that court can compare the
disputed handwriting/signature/finger impression with the
admitted handwriting/signature/finger impression, such
__________
Page  7  of  10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:11:10 pm )

CRP(MD) Nos. 961 & 962 of 2024
comparison by court without the assistance of any expert, has
always been considered to be hazardous and risky. When it is
said that there is no bar to a court to compare the disputed
finger impression with the admitted finger impression, it goes
without saying that it can record an opinion or finding on such
comparison, only after an analysis of the characteristics of the
admitted finger impression and after verifying whether the
same characteristics are found in the disputed finger
impression. The comparison of the two thumb impressions
cannot be casual or by a mere glance.”
In the present case, the suits in O.S.Nos.32 and 33 of 2023 are founded
entirely on the promissory notes dated 12.03.2022 and 16.11.2022, and
the petitioner/defendant has specifically denied her signatures on them.
The genuineness of those signatures is therefore the sheet-anchor of the
respondent/plaintiff’s case. The trial Court did not undertake any
comparison of the signatures. It rejected the request only on the ground
that the sale deed dated 25.04.2023 was executed after the promissory
notes and therefore could not be used for comparison. Section 73 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, does not require that the admitted signature
be of a date prior to the disputed signature. The sale deed is an admitted,
registered document that came into existence within a short time of the
promissory notes. In view of the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions,
the prudent course would be to obtain the opinion of an expert rather than
for the trial Court to undertake the comparison by itself.
__________
Page  8  of  10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:11:10 pm )

CRP(MD) Nos. 961 & 962 of 2024
14. Accordingly, the orders dated 06.03.2024 passed in I.A.No.3 of
2024 in O.S.No.32 of 2023 and I.A.No.3 of 2024 in O.S.No.33 of 2023
on the file of the Sub Court, Sattur are set aside. Consequently, the Court
below is directed to send the admitted and disputed documents, after duly
marking them, for examination by a hand writing expert to the Forensic
Science Laboratory, Madurai, as the competent authority for verification
of such signatures. On receipt of such reports, the trial Court may proceed
to decide the suits.
15. Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. No
costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
28-10-2026
Index: Yes
Speaking
Neutral Citation: Yes
PS
To
1.The Subordinate Court,
Sattur.
2.The Section Officer
VR Section
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Madurai.
__________
Page  9  of  10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:11:10 pm )

CRP(MD) Nos. 961 & 962 of 2024
RAJNISH PATHIYIL, J.
PS
CRP(MD) Nos. 961 & 962 of 2024
28-10-2026
__________
Page  10  of  10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 06:11:10 pm )