HARIHARAN Vs. RAJENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 6-6-2000 in I.A.382/2000 in O.S.71/2000 of the Principal Sub Court, Kochi. The revision petitioner is the defendant in O.S.71/1998. The suit is for specific performance of a contract; alleging that the defendant received altogether Rs.2,65,000/-towards sale consideration. The defendant disputed the receipt of Rs.1,15,000/-coveredby Exts.A1 (a), A1(b) and A2. The Trial Court listed the case for trial on 19-2-2000. The plaintiffs' evidence was closed on 22-2-2000. The defendant was partly examined on 29-2-2000 and his evidence was closed on 3-3-2000. Thereafter the case was posted for hearing to 9-3-2000, 15-3-2000 and 23-3-2000. The plaintiffs' argument was over on 23-3-2000 and the defendant finished his argument on 24-3-2000; The plaintiffs' counsel then filed an application for sending the disputed signature for getting the opinion of the Handwriting Expert. The court allowed the application. Aggrieved by the said order, this revision has been filed by the defendant.

(2.) The plaintiffs requested to send Exts.A1 series and A2 documents to the Handwriting Expert for comparison of the disputed signatures therein with the admitted signatures of the defendant in the suit. The suit is for specific performance of a contract in respect of 27 cents of land. The defendant agreed to sell the property for Rs.5,95,000/- as per Ext.Al agreement. The plaintiffs would allege that they had paid Rs. 1,35,000/- to the defendant by way of advance and after the execution of Ext.Al, paid Rs.2,65,000/- to the defendant on 3-6-1997 and the defendant issued Ext.A2 receipt. It is also alleged that there were subsequent payments and also extension of the period of agreement. The payments were endorsed by the defendant on Ext.A1 agreement, which were marked as Exts.A1(a) and A1(b). The defendant disputed the genuineness of the signatures in Exts.A1(a), A1(b) and A2. He opposed the application for comparison of the signatures by Finger Print Expert on the ground that it is belated.

(3.) In the light of the contentions raised by the defendant, the court below found that eventhough it is belated, the application for sending the documents for comparison of the admitted and disputed signatures to the Handwriting Expert is necessary for the disposal of the case. Since the signature in the receipt evidenced by Exts.A1(a), A1(b) and A2 are disputed, the same has to be sent to the Handwriting Expert for comparison. In order to determine the question in controversy between the parties, I also feel that the said application has to be allowed. Simply because an application is belated, it cannot be discarded, if the court is of the opinion, that the comparison of signatures is a must for a fair decision of the case. I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the court below.