SAROJA Vs. POORNA MARIYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS in O.S.No.81 of 1998 on the file of District Munsif Court, Aruppukottai, have preferred this revision petition aggrieved against the orders passed in I.A.No.319 of 2001, dated 7.6.2001.

(2.) THE case in brief is as follows: THE revision petitioners/defendants filed a petition underO.26, Rule 10-A and Sec.151 of Civil Procedure Code to send Exs.B-2 and B-23 with the admitted signatures of the first respondent for comparison to the Government handwriting expert at Madras through an Advocate Commissioner. THEse two documents came into existence on 12.5.1997 and the signatures in the documents have been disputed by the first respondent. THE respondents opposed the application that Ex.B-23 is attested by a Notary Public and the due execution of the document can be proved by examining the Notary Public and, as such, there is no necessity to send the documents for comparison. Now the evidence is in the closing stage and the present application has been filed only to delay the proceedings. Even assuming that the opinion is received from the handwriting expert, it is not a conclusive one under Sec.45 of the Evidence Act.

(3.) PERUSAL of the order passed by the Court below indicates that these documents can be proved through evidence. No doubt, one of the documents dated 12.5.1997 came into existence in the presence of a Notary Public. By examining the Notary Public and also by producing the entries in the relevant register. Ex.B-23 can be proved. The reasoning given by the Court below cannot be accepted. No doubt, the original documents cannot be sent to the handwriting expert directly and only photo copies can be sent for the purpose of comparison.