MUTHULAKSHMI Vs. DESIYA AZHAGAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CIVIL Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 09.06.2008 passed by the learned Principal District judge, Villupuram in I.A. No.303 of 2007 in O.S. No.85 of 2004.1. This CIVIL Revision Petition is projected by the revision petitioner/first defendant as against the order dated 9.6.2008 in I.A. No.303 of 2007 in O.S. No.85 of 2004 passed by the Principal District Judge, Villupuram, in dismissing the Application filed by the revision petitioner/first defendant under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and to appoint a Handwriting and Forensic Expert to submit his report after examining the contents of documents and purchase of stamp details, ink, thumb impression available in the sale agreement and the signature found in all the papers of the said document.

(2.) THE Trial Court while passing orders in LA. No.303 of 2007 has inter alia opined that "when the Application is filed belatedly, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief and has resultantly dismissed the Application".

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff contends that age of the ink cannot be determined by an expert with scientific accuracy and in support of his contention, he relies on the decision in the case of S. Gopal v. D. Balachandran, 2008 (1) CTC 491, wherein this, Court has observed that "age of ink cannot be determined by an expert with scientific accuracy and use of old ink on purpose would only dent opinion of expert and result in further confusion." He also cites the decision in the case of N. Chinnasamy v. P.S. Swaminathan, 2006 (4) CTC 850, wherein this Court has inter alia observed that "when defendant disputes signature in document relied on by plaintiff it is for plaintiff to take steps for examination of disputed signature by sending document to handwriting expert...".