SALEM CONSTRUCTIONS Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed against the Order dismissing the application filed under section 45 of the Evidence Act seeking to examine the signature of the first defendant found in Ex.A.3 with that of her admitted signatures.

(2.) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the first defendant executed a retirement deed dated 09.10.2007 which has been marked as Ex.P.3. However, in her written statement she had taken a stand that the signature found in the retirement deed is not her signature. She has also taken a plea that her signature has been forged in the document. Besides, she has also initiated a criminal complaint in Crime No.19 of 2010, which was taken cognizance by the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Salem in C.C.No.158 of 2011. Further, she has also filed a Criminal Original Petition before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.18625 of 2012 and the same has been disposed by this Court by an Order dated 10.08.2011. Therefore, it is the contention of the petitioner that unless the signature found in Ex.P.3 is examined by a handwriting expert, the petitioner will not be in a position to prove the document.

(3.) The learned counsel for the first respondent opposed the application on the ground that the evidence is already over and the signature of the respondent has been forged in the document and only in order to delay the suit proceedings, the application has been filed and there is no merits in the application.