- (1.) THIS revision is directed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Pollachi dated 20.10.2005 made in I.A.No.970 of 2005 in O.S.No.85 of 2005, in and by which the learned Judge dismissed the said application.
(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent. The petitioner-defendant filed I.A.No.970 of 2005 praying the Court to send the promissory note dated 10.10.2002 and trust deed dated 16.02.1996 wherein the signature of the petitioner is shown as tenth item, for opinion of an expert, in order to substantiate the defence taken by him. The said application was resisted by the respondent - plaintiff by filing a counter statement. It is stated that the alleged trust deed was executed as early as on 16.02.1996, whereas the suit promissory note was executed by the petitioner on 10.10.2002 i.e. about six years after the execution of the trust deed. In such circumstances, it is stated that there is every possibility to occur differences in the signature. Therefore, the signature in the trust deed cannot be compared with that of the suit promissory note. The learned Subordinate Judge, after accepting the fact that the trust deed being dated 16.02.1996, the suit promissory note dated 10.10.2002, the signature therein cannot be compared in view of the distance of time (six years), dismissed the said application. It is argued that even after rejection of the request of the petitioner, in the light of the stand taken, it is but proper on the part of the Court to send for the finger print expert for offering his opinion with regard to the signature in the suit promissory note. I am unable to accept the said contention since admittedly, the relief claimed in the application is to compare the signature found in the trust deed dated 16.02.1996 with that of the signature in the promissory note dated 10.10.2002. In the absence of any other claim/relief, I am of the view that the impugned order of the Court below cannot be faulted with. As rightly observed, the trust deed being of the year 1996 and the promissory note came into existence only in 2002, nearly after six years, I am in agreement with the reasoning of the learned Subordinate Judge. Apart from this, it is not in dispute that the Court is empowered to verify, compare and ascertain the genuineness or otherwise of the signature found in the suit promissory note. If there is any difficulty on the part of the Court, the other recourse can be adopted. With the above observation, this revision fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.;