Courts may summon unadmitted pre-dispute documents for forensic comparison with disputed signatures.

The respondent–plaintiff instituted O.S.No.8810 of 2019 before the First Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, seeking recovery of money under a loan deed dated 16 November 2016.

The petitioners–defendants denied borrowing the money and disputed the signatures appearing on the loan document marked as Ex.A.1.

The defendants’ application to send Ex.A.1 for forensic examination was allowed.

As the original sale deed sought for comparison had been deposited with a bank, the defendants obtained production of the relevant thumb-impression register from the Sub-Registrar, Ambattur, which was thereafter sent to the Forensic Department through an Advocate Commissioner.

The Commissioner subsequently reported that the first petitioner’s admitted signature was required for comparison.

The defendants therefore filed I.A.No.3 of 2025 seeking a subpoena to M/s. Repco Home Finance Limited for production of loan documents signed by the first petitioner in 2014, so that those documents could be sent for forensic comparison with Ex.A.1.

The trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the proposed comparison document was neither admitted nor registered.

The defendants challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Whether the trial Court was justified in refusing to issue a subpoena for production of a prior loan document containing the first petitioner’s signature, on the ground that the document was neither admitted nor registered?

Whether the proposed document could be sent for expert comparison with the disputed signature appearing on Ex.A.1?

Whether the trial Court’s order warranted interference under the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution?

The Court applied the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, permitting interference where the subordinate Court’s order is perverse or results in denial of a fair opportunity to establish a material defence.

It further applied the principle that a document containing a signature made by a party in the ordinary course of business, and before the dispute arose, may be summoned and used as comparative material for obtaining expert opinion on a disputed signature.

The Court also recognised that the burden rested on the defendants to establish that Ex.A.1 had not been signed by them, and that they were therefore entitled to a reasonable opportunity to substantiate that defence.

The High Court held that the proposed Repco Home Finance document was executed in 2014, well before the dispute commenced in 2019, and could therefore serve as relevant comparative material for examining the disputed signature in Ex.A.1.

The fact that the document was not a registered or previously admitted document did not, by itself, justify refusing its production, particularly when the forensic process was already underway and the Advocate Commissioner had specifically sought an admitted signature of the first petitioner.

Since the defendants bore the burden of proving that the disputed document was not signed by them, denying access to potentially relevant comparative evidence would effectively deprive them of an opportunity to establish their defence.

The trial Court’s refusal was consequently found to be perverse and liable to correction under Article 227.

The trial Court was directed to issue a subpoena to M/s. Repco Home Finance Limited for production of the relevant loan documents and, upon production, to send them through the Advocate Commissioner for expert comparison with Ex.A.1.

The expert opinion was directed to be obtained at the earliest, and the trial Court was ordered to dispose of the suit within four months from receipt of the High Court’s order.

No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.