In the High Court of Judicature at Madras DATE : 10..08..2009 CORAM : The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Sudhakar C.R.P. No: 2347 of 2009 1. E.Brinda Devi 2. E.Babitha Devi 3. E. Pavithra ... Petitioners Vs. R. Sumathi No: 14, Ellavi Street, Gopalapuram, Chennai  86 ... Respondent Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the decreetal order passed on 13.07.2009 in I.A. No: 450 of 2009 in O.S. No: 411 of 2009 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tambaram. For Petitioners : Mr.V. Subbarayan For Respondent : Mr. A.R. Nixon .. .. .. O R D E R The defendants have filed the civil revision petition challenging the order dated 13.7.2009 passed in the I.A. No. 450 of 2009 in O.S.No. 411 of 2009 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tambaram. 2. The respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit as against the petitioners No. 1 to 3 herein/ defendants No. 3 to 5 and one Meenakshi, the second defendant for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 20.5.2001 entered into between the plaintiff and the first defendant-Elumalai, father of the present petitioners/Defendants 3 to 5. The said Elumalai died even before the filing of the Suit. The suit is resisted by the fist petitioner/ 3rd defendant stating that the sale agreement dated 20.5.2001 and the endorsement made on 5.9.2001 by the father of the petitioners late Elumalai and the signature is not genuine and for that reason the present I.A.No. 450 of 2009 has been filed to compare the signature of late Elumalai found in the sale agreement and endorsement on the basis of the document executed on 30.11.1998 in favour of the husband of the plaintiff so as to establish the case that the sale agreement dated 20.5.2001 and endorsement dated 5.9.2001 with regard to further payment is not genuine. This application was resisted by the respondent/plaintiff. 3. In this regard, the petitioners pray that the signature in the sale agreement should be compared with the signature in the document dated 30.11.1998, which is the sale deed executed by late Elumalai in favour of the husband of the respondent/ plaintiff. This application was resisted by the respondent/plaintiff. According to the respondent, the executent viz., late Elumalai was in the habit of signing differently and there was no consistency. In this regard, he referred to the sale deeds vide document No. 5806/1996, dated 7.10.1996 and document No. 3626/1998, dated 30.11.1998 and partition deed dated 5.3.2001 vide document No.253/2001 and stated that the said Elumalai was in the habit of signing differently and therefore, all the documents should be compared and not one document as pleaded by the petitioners herein. 4. The fact that the deceased Elumalai, father of the petitioners herein has executed a sale agreement is not seriously disputed. The only contention with regard to the endorsement made in the agreement regarding the payment of money that there is a discrepancy in the signature and disputed that as to whether the amount has been paid. The respondent pleaded that the endorsement was made by late Elumalai if compared with the signature found in other documents which have been executed by the said Elumalai, it will give a definite conclusion regarding the signature. 5. In view of the specific plea raised by the respondent/plaintiff and the fact that several documents have been executed by late Elumalai and are contemporaneous to the sale agreement, there cannot be any impediment in comparing the signatures in all the documents referred to above. To this course of action, the petitioner has no grievance. The only reason given by the Court below is that the petition filed for referring the signature to the expert opinion under Order 26, Rule 10-A and 45 of Indian Evidence Act is belated. 6. Considering the contention raised by the learned counsel on either side, one factor that is apparent is that even as per the statement of the respondent/ plaintiff, the deceased Elumalai was in the habit of signing differently and that has to be resolved in this lis between the parties. In such situation, it will be appropriate that the application filed by the petitioner for referring the document for expert opinion with regard to the disputed signature in the sale agreement is to be disposed of in the manner provided under Order 26, Rule 10-A r/w 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. Further, the lis can be effectively decided considering inter-alia, the various documents said to have been executed by the deceased Elumalai. It will enable and aid the Court to come to a proper conclusion. In the present case, the only ground stated by the Court below is delay. That by itself cannot stand in the way of doing substantial justice to the parties. Therefore, the petition has to be allowed and accordingly, the following order is passed:- The impugned order is set aside. The petitioners/defendants 3 to 5 will produce the documents relating to partition in document No. 253/2001, dated 5.3.2001 and the petitioner will also take appropriate application for summoning other documents viz., sale deed dated 30.11.1998, document No.3626/1998. The petitioners undertake to submit the partition deed on the next hearing date and the Court below shall take necessary steps for comparing the signatures as provided in law and pass orders on merits. The civil revision petition is ordered in the above terms. Consequently, M.P.No. 1 of 2009 is closed. No costs. ra To The Subordinate Judge, Tambaram.