logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 7393 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras
Case No : Civil Revision Petition No. 5236 of 2026 & C.M.P. No. 22778 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
Parties : M/s. Dravida Textiles, Represented by its Managing Director, M. Vijaya Kumar, Coimbatore Versus V. Ganesan
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: T. Pushkin Rajkumar, P. Kavin Prabhu, Advocate. For the Respondent: L. Mouli, Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 25-09-2026
Head Note :-
Constitution of India - Article 227 -

Comparative Citation:
2026 (4) TLNJ 41,
Summary :-
Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Article 227 of the Constitution of India
- Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act

Catch Words:
- Limitation
- Expert opinion
- Thumb impression
- Signature comparison
- Promissory note
- Civil revision
- Revision petition

Summary:
The petitioner filed a civil revision petition under Article 227 challenging the dismissal of an application filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, which sought expert comparison of a disputed promissory note. The lower court rejected the application on the ground of delay and alleged frivolous motive. This Court observed that the promissory note already bears the petitioner’s thumb impression, while the comparative document (mortgage receipt) lacks one. It directed that the petitioner’s thumb impression be obtained and sent with the disputed note to the expert for comparison, obviating the need for a signature‑only comparison. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the revision petition is allowed. The subordinate judge is directed to dispose of the original suit within four months. No costs are awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Conclusion:
Petition Allowed
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the order dated 09-07-2026 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore in I.A.No.7 of 2024 in O.S.No.379 of 2018.)

1. This civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 09-07-2026 passed by the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, in I.A.No.7 of 2024 in O.S.No.379 of 2018, wherein the application filed by the petitioner/defendant under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send the disputed document viz., promissory note for expert opinion, came to be rejected by the Court below.

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondent and carefully perused the materials available on record. This Court also went through the impugned order.

3. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.379 of 2018 seeking for recovery of money based on the promissory note. The petitioner, who is the defendant, took a specific stand that no such promissory note was executed in favour of the plaintiff. An application was filed in I.A.No.7 of 2024 in O.S.No.379 of 2018 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for sending the disputed document for expert opinion after comparison with an admitted document, which is a mortgage receipt dated 18.05.2016. The Court below dismissed the application on the ground that there was substantial delay in filing the application and that the application has been filed for comparing the signature without questioning the thumb impression and the application itself has been filed only to drag on the proceedings.

4. In the considered view of this Court, the main defence taken by the petitioner/defendant is that no promissory note was executed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. For this purpose, the petitioner wants to get an expert opinion. The disputed promissory note has already been marked before the Court below and it contains both the signature as well as the thumb impression. The document which the petitioner wants the comparison to be made is a mortgage receipt, which does not contain any thumb impression. There is no other contemporaneous document available to compare the signature. The promissory note contains the thumb impression. Therefore, the thumb impression of the petitioner/defendant can be obtained by the Court and that can be sent to the expert for comparison along with the thumb impression that is found in the promissory note. This will sufficiently take care of the grounds raised by the petitioner/defendant instead of searching for signature in a contemporaneous document.

5. In the light of the above discussion, the impugned order passed by the Court below is hereby set aside and there shall be a direction to the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, to obtain the sample thumb impression from the petitioner/defendant and the same shall be sent along with the disputed promissory note in which the thumb impression is found and get an expert opinion from the expert.

In the result, this civil revision petition is allowed in the above terms. There shall be a direction to the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.379 of 2018 within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal