(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the docket order dated 02-07-2025 passed in O.S.No.189/2015 and consequently expunge the report dated 28-08-2024 in O.S.No.189/2015 on the file of the District Munsif Court at Tambaram.)

1. Challenging the docket Order passed by the District Munsif, Tambaram dated 02.07.2025 in O.S.No.189 of 2025 rejecting the memo filed by the petitioner, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

2. The first respondent has filed a suit in O.S.No.189 of 2015 before the District Munsif, Tambaram for the relief of declaration in respect of the suit property and consequential permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendants 1 to 4. The revision petitioner is the third defendant in the suit. According to the plaintiff, the suit property belongs to her and she claims absolute right over the suit property. It is her contention that as a security for the loan obtained by the husband of the plaintiff, she had given Power of Attorney in favour of the first defendant and with undue influence, the first defendant had executed sham and nominal sale deed in favour of the third and fourth defendants and also created a receipt as if the entire sale consideration has been paid to the plaintiff on the same day.

3. The second defendant had filed the written statement in the suit. After completion of evidence on both sides, when the suit was posted for arguments, the defendants have filed an application in I.A.No.5 of 2025 to send the receipt Ex.B.1 along with original general power of attorney deed dated 06.06.2011 along with this application and other admitted signatures of the plaintiff in the suit to forensic laboratory for comparison of disputed signature in Ex.B.1 with that of the admitted signatures of the plaintiff. The report has also been received from the forensic expert. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the trial Court has not sent all the documents filed by the plaintiff for comparison to the forensic examination.

4. After completion of trial, on the basis of the written submissions filed by the plaintiff, the defendants had filed the application in I.A.No.5 of 2025 to send the documents for forensic examination for comparison of the signature found in the Ex.B.1 receipt and other documents and the documents have been sent for comparison and report has also been received from the expert.

5. The report of the Scientific Officer was disputed by the defendants by filing a memo stating that all the documents as prayed by the defendants have not been sent for comparison. The trial Court, by holding that since there is a report based on the comparison by the scientific expert is available and if necessary, the Scientific Officer who issued the report will be examined and if the evidence so necessitates the admitted signature found in any other document need to be compared along with the disputed signatures in Ex.B.1, this Court will consider the same and will again send the documents for expert opinion as the suit is pending for more than 10 years and accordingly, the Memo was rejected. Aggrieved over the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that originally the petitioner had requested to the send the receipt and other documents for forensic examination to compare the signature in the Power of Attorney and receipt, but the trial Court has not sent all the documents for expert opinion, only two documents have been sent for comparison and obtained the report. However the cancellation of Power of Attorney has happened within 12 days from the execution of the Power of Attorney. Further the receipt and the cancellation of Power of Attorney happened within 12 days. Therefore, those documents have also to be sent for comparison of the signature of the first respondent in the document.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent raised objecting stating that already the report of the forensic expert has been received and the documents are of the year 2012. Therefore the trial Court had considered all these aspects and rightly rejected the memo.

8. The facts reveal that as per the contentions of the defendants the plaintiff has received entire sale consideration and issued a receipt on the date of execution of the sale deeds. It is their contention that the written statement has not been denied by the plaintiff by filing any reply statement. After filing of the written submissions by the plaintiff, the defendants have filed the application to send Ex.B.1 along with the original general power of attorney deed dated 06.06.2011, filed along with the application and other admitted signature of the plaintiff in the suit for comparison of the signature of the plaintiff found in the documents. But the Court had sent only two documents for expert opinion. When the defendants had prayed to send all the documents and the trial Court had sent only selected documents for forensic examination, the same require interference. It is the contention of the petitioner that if all the documents are not sent for forensic examination, it would lead to multiplicity of proceedings and miscarriage of justice will be caused and on the other hand, no prejudice will be caused to the first respondent. Therefore, this Court is of the view that one more opportunity has to be given to the petitioner and the findings of the trial Court has to be set aside.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent had raised objections stating that based on the memo, the defendant is not entitled to send the documents again for comparison without any proper application.

10. This Court is of the view that as the defendants had already filed an application to send all the documents for comparison, it is the mistake of the trial Court not sending all the documents for expert opinion. Hence, there is no need for the petitioner to file a separate application.

11. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that before the trial Court, he had raised a plea of limitation, which is available in his favour and he may be permitted to seek his remedy on the basis of the limitation.

12. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner is at liberty to work out his remedy either by raising the plea of limitation or by sending the documents to obtain fresh opinion.

13. With the above observations, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.