Madras High Court
Andromeda Fashions Limited vs Samir Suri on 11 June, 2025
Author: Anita Sumanth
Bench: Anita Sumanth
O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON :13.03.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 11.06.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
O.S.A.Nos. 131, 132 & 133 of 2024
and
C.M.P.Nos. 16751, 23934, 16994, 16744 of 2024
Andromeda Fashions Limited
Rep. By its Director,
Pradeep Singhania,
11-B, SIDCO Industrial Estate,
Ambattur, Chennai – 600 098. .. Appellant
in all OSAs
vs
1.Samir Suri
2.Samir Suri Inc.,
Rep. By Samir Suri,
850, South Broadway,
Suite 700, Los Angeles CA 90014,
United States of America.
3.Mrs.Uma Suri
C-644 New Friends Colony,
New Delhi 110 065.
Residing at
3619 Dunn DR
1/71
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm )
O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024
Los Angeles CA – 90034, USA. .. Respondents
in all OSAs
Prayer in O.S.A.No. 131 of 2024: Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule
1 of the Madras High Court Original Side Rules under Clause 15 of
Letters Patent against judgment and decree dated 28.03.2024 in A.No. 974
of 2024 in A.No. 5583 of 2022 in C.S.No. 536 of 1999.
Prayer in O.S.A.No.132 of 2024 : Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule
1 of the Madras High Court Original Side Rules under Clause 15 of
Letters Patent to set aside the judgment and decree dated 28.03.2024 in
A.No. 976 of 2024 in A.No. 5583 of 2022 in C.S.No. 536 of 1999.
Prayer in O.S.A.No.133 of 2024 : Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule
1 of the Madras High Court Original Side Rules under Clause 15 of
Letters Patent to set aside the judgment and decree dated 28.03.2024 in
A.No. 975 of 2024 in A.No. 5583 of 2022 in C.S.No. 536 of 1999.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Srinivas, Senior Counsel
For Mr.K.Ashok Kumar
(in all OSAs)
For Respondents : Mrs.N.Kavitha Rameshwar
For Mr.S.K.Rameshwar
For R1 (in all OSAs)
COMMON JUDGMENT
Dr. ANITA SUMANTH.,J The challenge is to an order passed in three applications on 28.03.2024. The appellant is the plaintiff in C.S.No.536 of 1999 and the applicant in the applications. The prayers in the applications are as follows:-
2/71
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm ) O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024 A.No. 974 of 2024:-
Application praying that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass an order to initiate contempt proceedings against the 1st Respondent for wilfully using false signatures in affidavit in A.No 5583 of 2022 in C.S No 536 of 1999.
A.No 975 of 2024:-
Application praying that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass an order to send the signatures of the deponent found in ANo 5583 of 2022 in C.S No 536 of 1999 for comparison by a competent handwriting expert with the signatures of the deponent found in the rejoinder affidavit o the 1st Respondent in A.No 5583 of 2022 in C.S No 536 of 1999 and the signatures of the 1st Respondent found in the deed of relinquishment dated 08.02.2017 registered as document no 506 in the office of the Sub-Registrar V (1) New Delhi and to obtain a report based on such examination.
A.No 976 of 2024:-
Application praying that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass an order to compare the signatures of the deponent found in the affidavit filed in support of A.No 5583 of 2022 in C.S No 536 of 1999 with the signatures of the deponent found in the rejoinder affidavit of the 1st respondent in A.No 5583 of 2022 in C.S.No 536 of 1999 and the signatures of the 1st Respondent found in the deed of relinquishment dated 08.02.2017 registered as document no.506 in the office of Sub-Registrar V(1) New Delhi
2. C.S.No. 536 of 1999 had been filed as against a Company and two directors seeking a money decree and costs. The respondents were set exparte vide order dated 16.04.2012 and the Suit ultimately came to 3/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm ) O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024 be decreed on 26.04.2012 as prayed for. While so, the second respondent (D2 in suit) filed Application No.5583 of 2022 seeking to set aside the exparte decree and judgment. The Application, dated 04.09.2022, was filed belatedly, with a delay of 3784 days.
3. To be noted that that the deponent in that Affidavit was R1 (hereinafter referred to either as R1 or Mr.Samir Suri), and the affidavit was attested by one R.Sivakumar, Advocate, Chennai along with his address and enrolment particulars. The Appellant had filed a Counter to that application on 19.12.2022 seriously objecting to the delay.
4. Inter alia, the Appellant had stated that there was no justification for the enormous delay in filing. They averred that the Suit had been correctly decided, specifically stating that the respondents had evaded service in the suit. According to them, direct service had been effected upon the last known residential address of the second defendant.
Substituted service had also been effected upon the second defendant by way of paper publication in the international edition of the Hindu on 28.09.2002.
5. As far as the third respondent is concerned, substituted service was taken by way of paper publication in the Delhi edition of a 4/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm ) O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024 newspaper and additionally, service was taken in the local edition of the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles edition. Thus, the respondents had been duly served and there was no justification for the belated application for seeking setting aside of the decree and judgement in the Appellants’ favour.
6. A Rejoinder dated 27.12.2022 had been filed by the first respondent, upon receipt of which, the Appellant noticed discrepancies in the signatures in that Rejoinder and in the Application filed seeking condonation of delay of 3784 days. It is thus that the three Applications came to be filed setting out the prayers as adumbrated above.
7. The Applications had been countered by the respondents denying the allegations of forgery and fraud. However, they had conceded to the fact that the attestation in Chennai was improper as R1 had admittedly signed the Applications only in USA. A fresh Affidavit had been executed by R1 on 11.09.2023, tendering an apology for the aforesaid error. Upon a consideration of the rival submissions, the Applications had come to be dismissed vide order dated 28.03.2024, as against which order the present appeals have been filed. 5/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm ) O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024
8. The submissions of Mr.Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.K.Ashok Kumar for the appellant are to the effect that the signatures of the deponent, Mr.Samir Suri (in affidavit dated 04.09.2022 and vakalat dated 19.08.2022 on the one hand, and in affidavits dated 27.12.2022, 11.09.2023 and 29.02.2024 and Relinquishment Deed dated 08.02.2017, registered as Document No.506 in the office of the Sub-Registrar V(1), New Delhi on the other), do not tally and that the signatures in Affidavit dated 27.12.2022 and vakalat dated 19.08.2022 are forged.
9. The Appellant has also argued that since R1 was admittedly not in Chennai when affidavit dated 04.09.2022 had been signed and filed, both the signatures in the affidavit as well as the attestation to the effect that the party had signed the document in Chennai, are contrary to law and fact.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant relies on the following judgments:-
(i) M.S.Ahlawat v State of Haryana and others1
(ii) Ajay Kumar Paramar v State of Rajasthatn2
(iii) Afzal and another v State of Haryana and others3 1 (2001) 1 SCC 278 2 (2012) 12 SCC 406 3 (1996) 7 SCC 397 6/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm ) O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024
(iv) Sanjay Kumar Singh v State of Jharkhand4
(v) In Re : Perry Kansagra5
(vi) Lalit Popli v Canara Bank and others6
(vii) C.Elumalai and others v A.G.L.Irudayaraj and another7
(viii) Nizar Zaffar Lilali v H.A.K.Mohammed Moshin and others8
(ix) Abdul Kalam Azad and ors v Ananthalakshmi and others9
(x) S.N.Vijayakumar v S.R.Velusamy10
(xi) Mannalal Khetan and others v Kedar Nath Khetan and others11
(xii)Dy. General Manager, and others v Sudarshan Kumari and others12
11. Mrs.N.Kavitha Rameshwar, learned counsel for the respondents concedes to the fact that affidavit dated 04.09.2022 in A.No.5583 of 2022 was not signed in Chennai. According to her, the application was signed in Los Angeles, sent to Chennai for attestation, and filed thereafter. To this end, R2 has filed a fresh affidavit dated 11.09.2023 in A. No.5582 of 2022 confirming the aforesaid position unequivocally.
12. R1 has tendered an apology for the above, which, according to him, is a curable aberration. He has also pleaded that the Advocate who had attested the signature as having been executed before him, should not suffer for the same. A second Rejoinder dated 11.03.2023 has thus come 4 (2022) 7 SCC 247 5 2022 SCC OnLine SC 858 6 (2003) 3 SCC 583 7 (2009) 4 SCC 213 8 1992 – 2 – LW- 577 9 2012 (2) MNW (Civil) 63 10 2005 – 2 L.W.-694 11 (1977) 2 SCC 424 12 (1996) 3 SCC 763 7/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm ) O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024 to be been filed by R1 in A.No.5583 of 2022, executed abroad and with Consular attestation.
13. Mr.Srinivas would however argue that by virtue of affidavit dated 11.03.2023, the Respondents have perpetrated the fraud played on the Court. Apart from the position that affidavit dated 04.09.2022 was illegally executed, the Respondents have, in Affidavit dated 11.03.2023, reiterated that the signatures in Affidavit dated 04.09.2022 are those of R1 only. The same position has been reiterated before the Court in defending the three Applications as well as now, in the present Appeal.
14. In the counter to A.Nos.974, 975 & 976 of 2024, Mr.Samir Suri has stated that the deponent intended to visit India and had hence signed the same, though in Los Angeles. Subsequently and since he had not been able to travel to India he had scanned and sent it to his advocates in Chennai in order that they may proceed with the processing and filing of the same.
15. The averments in para 6 of Affidavit dated 29.02.2024 thus make it clear that there is an aberration in affidavit dated 04.09.2022, at least in regard to the attestation, if nothing else. 8/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm ) O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024
16. In the present case, it is not only affidavit dated 04.09.2022 which is called into question but affidavit dated 29.02.2024 as well. If the Court is persuaded to accept the position that both the affidavits contain false statements, then clearly, that would lead to a conclusion of fraud having been committed upon this Court, and cannot be brushed away as being a mere inadvertent error.
17. Learned counsel for the first respondent relies on the following judgments:-
(i) Mobarik Ali Ahamed v The State of Bombay13
(ii) Sasikala Pushpa and Ors v State of Tamil Nadu14
(iii) Atlanta Infrastructure Limited v Delta Marine Company15
(iv) K.S.Nageswara Aiyar v S.Ganesa Aiyar16
18. We have heard learned counsel in detail and have also carefully considered the records as well as case law cited. We have devoted anxious consideration to the signatures of R1 as set out in affidavit dated 04.09.2022 and vakalat dated 19.08.2022 (referred to as documents in Group I) and affidavits dated 27.12.2022, 11.09.2023 and 29.02.2024 as well as deed of relinquishment dated 08.02.2017, 13 AIR 1957 SC 857 14 (2019) 6 SCC 477 15 (2021) 20 SCC 593 16 1942 2 MLJ 198 9/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm ) O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024 registered as Document No.506 in the office of the Sub-Registrar V(1) New Delhi (referred to as documents in Group II).
19. Learned Judge has recorded the submission of the appellant relating to the alleged variance in the signatures of Mr.Samir Suri, in documents in Group I and II. He has dismissed the Applications, being of the view that nothing more needs to be looked into when the deponent to all those documents (both Group I and II) has himself stated/confirmed that he has executed the affidavits/documents in question. The Court has indicated that this is a fit case for imposition of costs but has refrained from doing so on the strength of the opinion that the deponent has owned the signatures and thus no further verification is required.
20. Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 enables the Court to make a comparison of writing samples with other admitted writing samples of that individual. On a careful comparison of the signatures in Group I and II documents, we find that there are very apparent differences between the signatures Group I documents and Group II documents. We set out below in seriatim, the signatures in all the documents are aforesaid to buttress our point:
10/71
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm ) O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024 Group I Affidavit dated 04.09.2022 (8 signatures) Vakalat dated 19.08.2022 11/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm ) O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024 Group II First rejoinder dated 27.12.2022 (5 signatures) Relinquishment Deed dated 08.02.2017 (6 signatures) 12/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm ) O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024 Affidavit dated 11.09.2023 ( 18 signatures) 13/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm ) O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024 Counter affidavit dated (29.02.2024) (8 signatures) 14/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm ) O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024
21. The admitted signatures of Mr.Samir Suri, as may be seen in the first rejoinder dated 27.12.2022, Relinquishment Deed dated 08.02.2017, affidavit dated 11.09.2023 and counter affidavit dated 29.02.2024, contain a stylised version of 'S' in 'Suri'. Per contra, affidavit dated 04.09.2022 and accompanying vakalat dated 19.08.2022 do not reflect the stylized 'S' and in addition, contain a spike prior to the 'S in 'Suri'.
22. We are thus of the view that the signatures in affidavit dated 04.09.2022 and accompanying vakalat dated 19.08.2022, contain material differences from the signatures in the documents in Group II.
23. In Ajay Kumar Parmar17, the Supreme Court undertook an examination of the signatures of the Prosecutrix in two sets of records, coming to the conclusion that the two sets of signatures do not tally, as there were apparent dissimilarities between them. At paragraphs 24 and 25, the Court observed as follows:
24. Evidence of identity of handwriting has been dealt with by three Sections of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (here inafter referred to as the ‘Evidence Act’) i.e. Sections 45, 47 and 73. Section 73 of the said Act provides for a com parison made by the Court with a writing sample given in its presence, or admitted, or proved to be the writing of the con cerned person. (Vide: Ram Chandra & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1957 SC 381; Ishwari Prasad Misra v. Moham 17 Foot Note Supra (2) 15/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm ) O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024 mad Isa, AIR 1963 SC 1728; Shashi Kumar Banerjee & Ors. v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee, AIR 1964 SC 529; Fakhruddin v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1967 SC 1326; and State of Ma harashtra v. Sukhdeo Singh & Anr., AIR 1992 SC 2100).
25. In Murari Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 363, this Court, while dealing with the said issue, held that, in case there is no expert opinion to assist the court in respect of hand writing available, the court should seek guidance from some authorita tive text-book and the courts own experience and knowledge, howev er even in the absence of the same, it should discharge its duty with or without expert, with or without any other evidence.
24. After discussing the cases in A.Neelalohithadasan Nadar V. George Mascrene18 and O.Bharathan v. K.Sudhakaran19, where it was reiterated that Courts follow a self-imposed caution in matters of comparison of signatures, the Bench in Ajay Kumar Parmar20, notes that there is no legal bar to prevent the Court from comparing signatures or handwriting, using its own eyes and powers of observation.
25. While the Court would refrain from playing the role of an expert, the opinion of an expert is itself not conclusive, except in cases where there was already an opinion of an expert or of a witness, in which case, the Court may apply its own observations by comparing the signatures or handwritings and for providing a decisive weight or 18 1994 Supp (2) SCC 619 19 AIR 1996 SC 1140 20Foot Note Supra (2) 16/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm ) O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024 influence to its decision.
26. Based on the discussion and on its own appreciation of the signatures of the Prosecutrix in two different sets of records, the Court concluded that the apparent dissimilarities would certainly create a suspicion. So too in the present case, where the apparent dissimilarities would lead us to disbelieve that the signatures in Group I belong to Mr. Samir Suri.
27. In Afzal and another21, the Supreme Court was concerned with the affidavits containing erroneous statements before the Court and came down hard on two police officials for fabrication of false records. They were convicted and sentenced under the appropriate provisions of the Indian Penal Code for undergoing rigorous imprisonment. The Court held that there is utmost importance to curb the tendency of fabricating records with false affidavits and placing them before the Courts and such actions would indicate gross depravity of conduct.
28. In Sanjay Kumar Singh22, the question that arose was whether the appellate Court could travel outside the record of the lower Court, by taking evidence in appeal. The Court noted that Order 41 Rule 27 of the 21Foot Note Supra (3) 22Foot Note Supra (4) 17/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm ) O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024 Civil Procedure Code enabled the Court to take evidence in exceptional circumstances, adding that such additional evidence may be permitted if the Court felt that it removed the cloud of doubt that hovered over the case and the evidence would have a direct and important bearing on the issue in suit.
29. What is important, the Court held, referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in A.Andisamy Chettiar V. A.Subburaj Chettiar23, is that the appellate Court must feel the need for that evidence to be adduced in order to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. The true test laid down was whether the judgment could have been pronounced on the materials before it without taking into consideration the additional evidence sought to be adduced.
30. In the present case, we have not travelled outside the record, but restricted ourselves to the pleadings and the Relinquishment Deed which was produced by the parties before the lower Court.
31. In M.S.Ahlawat24, three Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court set aside the conviction of that petitioner observing that to perpetuate an error is no virtue but to correct it is a compulsion of judicial conscience. 23(2015) 17 SCC 713 24Foot Note Supra (1) 18/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm ) O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024
32. Mr. Srinivas would prod our conscience urging that the error committed by the lower Court must be corrected, particularly since the allegation against the respondents is one of fraud played as against the Court and not merely as against a private party.
33. In Re:Perry Kansagra25, said Perry was alleged to have tendered affidavits and undertakings containing false statements that would not only amount to fraud on Court but also to perjury and criminal contempt. In that context, the Court holds that when a person is proved to have made a false statement before the Court and attempt to deceive it, he interferes with the administration of justice and is guilty of contempt of Court. In such circumstances, the Court not only has inherent power but would be failing in its duty if that contemnor was not dealt with in contempt jurisdiction for abuse of process of the Court.
34. In the case of Sudarshan Kumari26, the application, affidavit and vakalatnama were held not to have been signed by the respondent Sudarshan Kumari.
35. In that case, Sudarshan Kumari who had appeared in Court was asked to sign in the open Court and the signatures were compared with the 25Foot Note Supra (5) 26Foot Note Supra (12) 19/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm ) O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024 signatures on the vakalatnama and affidavits. The Court found that they were not consistent with her admitted signatures. Faced with that position, she had sought permission for withdrawal of the Writ Petition with liberty to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. Such liberty was granted.
36. The matter was taken in appeal before the Supreme Court by the Deputy General of ISB and on a consideration of the fact that the documents had admittedly not been signed by the respondents, the liberty granted by the High Court was reversed and action was directed to be taken as against the Notary. The Supreme Court Registry was thus directed to issue a show cause notice to the Notary as to why he should not be prosecuted and punished for attesting false affidavits of impersonators with all attendant consequences. The cross appeal filed by Sudarshan Kumari was dismissed with costs.
37. A reading of the aforesaid judgments would show that the consistent view of the Supreme Court has been to deprecate instances where pleadings are signed by somebody else on behalf of the deponent and affidavits are attested by Advocates/Notary without verification of the deponent and in matters where the deponent had been impersonated. 20/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm ) O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024
38. We now advert to the judgments relied on by the respondents. In Mobarik Ali Ahmed27, the Supreme Court dealt with the conviction of various offences under the Indian Penal Code. In the course of that hearing, the Court looked into certain letters that had been exchanged inter se the parties. Those letters and the signatures were disputed by the appellant and the objection came to be rejected by the Court. The specific observations relied upon by the respondents read thus:
11............The proof of the genuineness of a document is proof of the authorship of the document and is proof of a fact like that of any other fact. The evidence relating thereto may be direct or circumstantial. It may consist of direct evidence of a person who saw the document being written or the signature being affixed. It may be proof of the handwriting of the contents,or of the signature, by one of the modes provided in ss. 45 and 47 of the Indian Evidence Act. It may also be proved by internal evidence affordedby the contents of the document.This last mode of proof by the contents may be of considerable value where the disputed document purports to be a link in a chain of correspondence, some links in which are proved to the satisfaction of the court. In such a situation the person who is the recipient of the document, be it either a letter or a telegram, would be in a reasonably good position both with reference to his prior knowledge of the writing or the signature of the alleged sender, limited though it may be, as also his knowledge of the subject matter of the chain of correspondence, to speak to its authorship. In an appropriate case the court may also be in a position to judge whether the document constitutes a genuine link in the chain of correspondence and thus to determine its 27Foot Note Supra (13) 21/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm ) O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024 authorship. We are unable, therefore, to say that the approach adopted by the courts below in arriving at the conclusion that the letters are genuine is open to any serious legal objection. The question,if any, can only be as to the adequacy of the material on which the conclusion as to the genuineness of the letters is arrived at. That however is a matter which we cannot permit to be canvassed before us.
39. In that case, the lower Court appears to have taken into account the objectionable letters holding them to be links in a chain of correspondences, some links of which had been proved to the satisfaction of the Court. The Court notes that in such a situation, the recipient of the letter or telegram would be in a reasonably good position, both with reference to prior knowledge of the handwriting or signature of the alleged sender, as well as his knowledge of the subject matter of the chain of correspondence, to speak to its authorship.
40. The Court also noted that in some cases, the Court may itself be in a position to judge whether that document would be a genuine link in the chain of correspondence and thus come to a considered view as to its ownership. Either of these approaches would be proper approaches, the Court held, in deciding on whether a particular piece of correspondence would be genuine. Since the lower Court had followed the aforesaid approaches, the Supreme Court concluded that there was no 22/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm ) O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024 error in the manner by which the Court had determined the genuineness of the letters.
41. The parties in that case had not been proceeded on the specifics of the signatures itself, but on the overall methodology to be followed in appreciation of evidence, proving the documents and standard of proof.
42. Our approach has been more factual, in that, as we have had the benefit of the entirety of the records that have been referred to by the parties. We have been in a position to appreciate the signatures minutely and have chronicled the apparent dissimilarities in the signatures.
43. In the case of Sasikala Pushpa28, which travelled from our Court, the allegation was that the appellant had not executed the vakalatnama and documents which were alleged to have been forged. There is a factual finding in that order by the Court that the appellants have admitted their signatures in the vakalatnama and hence, the document was not a forged document. The Court was convinced by the aforesaid statement.
44. They note that there was no necessity for reference to a handwriting expert, since the appellant had admitted the signatures in the 28Foot Note Supra (14) 23/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm ) O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024 vakalatnama. The Court also found factually that the document was not a forged document. There is a specific finding that there was nothing on record to suggest that the appellants gained anything by playing fraud or practising deception.
45. In light of the aforesaid position, the Court concluded that there was no prima facie evidence of any intention to cause damage, injury or other acts. The error in that case was that the vakalatnama stated that it had been signed on a particular date at Madurai in the presence of an Advocate, which was an incorrect statement, as it had been signed by those appellants elsewhere and had been attested in a different location thereafter. In light of the factual position adumbrated in paragraphs 45 and 46 above, this Court concluded that what had been committed was only an error, which does not constitute fraud.
46. The facts in that matter when compared to the present are entirely different. In that case, the Court has rendered an unequivocal finding that the document was not forged and had been convinced with the statement of the appellants that the document had been signed by them. Not so in the present case as the signatures on Group I documents, in our view, reveal that they were not of the deponent at all. 24/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm ) O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024
47. In K.S.Nageswara Aiyar29, though there was a tentative statement involving fraud, the Court was of the view that that aspect has not been sufficiently indicated in the written statement of the respondent or by the Lower Court and hence, felt that the question of fraud was extraneous to the matter, quoting the judgment in Chinnayya V. Ramanna30.
48. We cannot take a casual view in such matters. When a comparison of signatures reveals to us that the signatures in Group I of the documents are different from those in Group II and we have arrived at a categoric conclusion that the signatures do not tally, nothing remains to be said as far as the fraud played by R1 is concerned.
49. R1 has chosen not to come clean but has continued to perpetuate the fraud insisting time and again that the signatures were correct and that he be permitted to pursue the matter. By way of abundant caution, a fresh affidavit has been executed on 11.09.2023 tendering an apology for obtaining a wrongful attestation. We are wholly unconvinced with the explanation that has been tendered under affidavit dated 29Foot Note Supra (16) 30(1913) 25 MLJ 228 25/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm ) O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024 11.09.2023, which, in fact, stands testimony to the reiteration of the error committed in the earlier affidavit.
50. The only ground on which the applications of the appellant have been dismissed by the learned Judge is that R1 has admitted the signatures in the documents in Group I. Naturally, Mr.Samir Suri would admit those signatures, seeing as he has everything to gain from such admission. The challenge to those documents can only be raised by a party who stands to lose from the proceedings initiated by virtue of the forged documents.
51. Hence, we do not concur with the conclusion that the allegation of forgery must be rejected merely on the statement of the interested party, who stands to benefit by acceptance of the offending signatures. Though normally, the acquiescence of a party to a document would be sufficient, an exception must be made in situations, such as the present, where the allegations of forgery must be tested and conclusion drawn, without reference to the statement of the interested party.
52. O.S.A.No.132 of 2024 challenging the rejection of A.No.976 of 2024 seeking a comparison by the Court of the signatures found in Group I and Group II documents is allowed.
26/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm ) O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024
53. In light of our categoric finding that the signatures found in Group I and Group II differ, we see no need to refer the signatures for examination to a handwriting expert. Incidentally, this exercise has been undertaken by the appellant and the opinion of the handwriting expert has also been procured which would support our conclusion in A.No.976 of 2024 in relation to the apparent variations in Group I and Group II signatures. Hence, O.S.A.No.133 of 2024 challenging rejection of A.No.975 of 2024 is dismissed.
54. As far as A.No.974 of 2024 for initiating contempt against R1 is concerned, notwithstanding our conclusion in O.S.A.No.132 of 2024, we do not wish to precipitate the matter at this juncture and hence, close O.S.A.No.131 of 2024. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
[A.S.M., J] [C.K., J]
11.06.2025
Index:Yes/No
Speaking Order/ Non-Speaking Order
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
sl
27/71
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm )
O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024
DR. ANITA SUMANTH.,J.
and
C.KUMARAPPAN.,J.
sl
O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024
and
C.M.P.Nos.16751, 23934, 16994, 16744 of 2024 11.06.2025 28/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm ) O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON :13.03.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 11.06.2025 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH and THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN O.S.A.Nos.131, 132 & 133 of 2024 and C.M.P.Nos. 16751, 23934, 16994, 16744 of 2024 Andromeda Fashions Limited Rep. By its Director, Pradeep Singhania, 11-B, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai – 600 098.
... Appellant in all OSAs
- Vs -
1.Samir Suri
2.Samir Suri Inc., Rep. By Samir Suri, 850, South Broadway, Suite 700, Los Angeles CA 90014, United States of America.
3.Mrs.Uma Suri C-644 New Friends Colony, New Delhi 110 065.
Residing at 3619 Dunn DR Los Angeles CA – 90034, USA.
... Respondents in all OSAs 29/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm ) O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024 Prayer in O.S.A.No. 131 of 2024: Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of the Madras High Court Original Side Rules under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against judgment and decree dated 28.03.2024 in A.No. 974 of 2024 in A.No. 5583 of 2022 in C.S.No. 536 of 1999. Prayer in O.S.A.No.132 of 2024 : Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of the Madras High Court Original Side Rules under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the judgment and decree dated 28.03.2024 in A.No. 976 of 2024 in A.No. 5583 of 2022 in C.S.No. 536 of 1999. Prayer in O.S.A.No.133 of 2024 : Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of the Madras High Court Original Side Rules under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the judgment and decree dated 28.03.2024 in A.No. 975 of 2024 in A.No. 5583 of 2022 in C.S.No. 536 of 1999.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Srinivas, Senior Counsel
For Mr.K.Ashok Kumar
(in all OSAs)
For Respondents :Mrs.N.Kavitha Rameshwar
For Mr.S.K.Rameshwar
For R1 (in all OSAs)
*****
C O M M O N J U D G M E N T
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
Few facts which are relevant and germane for deciding this case are as follows:-
(a). The appellant herein is the plaintiff in CS.No.536 of 1999 and the respondents herein are the defendants. The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.62,64,658.40/- and for interest against the 30/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm ) O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024 respondent/defendant, in which an ex-parte decree was passed on 26.04.2012. Thereafter, at the instance of the appellant, an Execution Petition was filed before this Court and subsequently, the same was transmitted to the jurisdictional executing Court at Delhi.
(b). At this juncture, the 2nd defendant filed an application to set aside the ex-parte decree, along with an application to condone the delay of 3784 days. The delay condonation application was filed before the Court on 02.12.2022. For deciding the present issue, the reason for delay, and the pleadings of the counter statement are not relevant.
(c). It appears that subsequent to filing of the counter statement in delay condonation application, the 2nd defendant filed a rejoinder, which triggered the plaintiff to file the present applications on the premise that the deponent named in the affidavit of delay condonation application is not the author of the signature found therein, and that the same is forged one, as the deponent was, admittedly out of Country at the relevant point of time qua at USA, but was attested at Chennai on 04.09.2022. It is in this background, the plaintiff filed three applications with a prayer to initiate contempt proceedings, to send the affidavit in A.No.5583 of 2022 for an expert opinion to compare the deponent's signature by a handwriting 31/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm ) O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024 expert, and also sought for a prayer to compare the signature by the Court itself by employing Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act.
2. However, the 2nd defendant stoutly refuted the case of forgery, but owned the authorship of the signature found in the affidavit of delay condonation application, though he admits that, on the date of attestation of his signature [04.09.2022], he was not at all in India. It is his further submission that the act of attestation on 04.09.2022 at Chennai is only an inadvertent clerical mistake. For which, he also sought for an unconditional apology and pardon of this Court. In short, it is the contention of the respondent/2nd defendant that neither any impersonation nor any forgery was committed by him as alleged by the plaintiff.
3. I have heard Mr.R.Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.K.Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mrs.N.Kavitha Rameshwar, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent.
4. Mr.R.Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff would vehemently contend that the learned Single Judge 32/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm ) O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024 had not appreciated the fact and law in its right perspective, and that the very finding that there are no variance between the signature found in the original affidavit, and in the rejoinder, is ipso facto contrary to the factual position. He would further contend that the impersonation and forgery would be apparent from the attestation of the deponent's signature at Chennai, when the 2nd defendant was admittedly not in India, at the relevant point of time. It is his further submission that the conduct of the defendant is nothing but playing fraud against the Court, and such conduct should not be allowed to whittle down, by mere act of owning the forged signature. In support of their contention, they relied upon the following judgments:-
1. Afzal and another Vs. State of Haryana and others reported in (1996) 7 SCC 397;
2. Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2022) 7 SCC 247;
3. M.S.Ahlawat Vs. State of Haryana and another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 278;
4. Lalit Popli Vs. Canara Bank and others reported in (2003) 3 SCC 583;
5. C.Elumalai and others Vs. A.G.L.Irudayaraj and another reported in (2009) 4 SCC 213;
6. Nizar Zaffar Lilali Vs. H.A.K.Mohammed Moshin and 33/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm ) O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024 others reported in 1999 2 LW 577;
7. Abdul Kalam Azad and others Vs. Ananthalakshmi and others reported in 2012 (2) MWN (Civil) 63;
8. S.N.Vijayakumar Vs. S.R.Velusamy reported in 2005-2-LW-
694;
9. Mannalal Khetan and others Vs. Kedar Nath Khetan and others reported in (1977) 2 SCC 424;
10.Dy. General Manager redesignated as Dy.Director, ISB and others Vs. Sudarshan Kumari and others reported in (1996) 3 SCC 763;
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent/defendant would vehemently contend that what was admitted by the 2nd defendant is only an inadvertence mistake of wrong attestation, and that the deponent signature found in the delay condonation application is that of the 2nd defendant. She would further contend that when the author of the alleged disputed signature owned the same, there is no necessity arises to invoke Section 73 & 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, as the opinion evidence is not a conclusive proof. She would further contend that when the factum of alleged forgery, or playing fraud is inconclusive, and yet to be proved, initiating contempt proceedings is unknown to law and premature one. Hence, he would pray to dismiss all the OSAs. In support of her 34/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm ) O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024 contention, she relied upon the following judgments.
1. Mobarik Ali Ahmed Vs. The State of Bombay reported in 1957 SCC OnLine SC 46;
2. Sasikala Pushpa and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in AIR 2019 SC 2280;
3. Atlanta Infrastructure Ltd., Vs. Delta Marine Company and Others reported in 2021 (20) SCC 477;
4. K.S.Nageswara Aiyar Vs. S.Ganesa Aiyar reported in 1942 (2) MLJ 198.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.
7. The short facts to be considered for the disposal of these OSA are in the backdrop of owning authorship of the alleged disputed signature, is there any necessity for the Court to send the disputed signatures for an opinion by a handwriting expert, and for a comparison by the Court, under Section 45 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act?
8. Both side relied so many precedents to bring home their respective point. Therefore, before delve into the merits of the matter, it is appropriate to deal with the precedents relied by either side to test it's relevance. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant relied Afzal’s case 35/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm ) O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024 [cited supra]. According to the facts of the above reported case, it is an admitted fact that the signature was not subscribed by deponent Mr.M.S.Ahlawat. Only in that context, the Hon’ble Supreme Court found that a false or a misleading or a wrong statement before the Court to obtain a favourable order would nothing, but interfering with a due course of judicial proceedings. It is in this background, the Hon’ble Supreme Court initiated contempt proceedings, and also imposed punishment under Section 193 of Cr.P.C. Such an admission had been mentioned in paragraph 9 of the connected parent case reported in (1994) 1 SCC 425 [Afzal and another Vs. State of Haryana and others]. The relevant portion is extracted herein below:-
“9. M.S. Ahlawat, Superintendent of Police filed another counter-affidavit dated November 5, 1993 to the effect that whatever was stated in the earlier counter-affidavit dated October 30, 1993 was factually wrong. He came to know of this case only on November 2, 1993. On November 15, 1993 he would go one step further and state that the earlier affidavit filed purported to be dated October 30, 1993 had not been signed or sworn by him. A preliminary fact finding enquiry into the matter has been ordered through the Deputy Superintendent of Police GRP, Hissar. He had submitted a report on November 7, 1993 to the effect that his signature had been forged by one Head Constable Krishan Kumar who had been put under 36/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm ) O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024 suspension and transferred to GRP Lines, Ambala City.” [Emphasis supplied by this Court]
9. It is also relevant to refer yet another connected case, which serendipitously relied by the learned Senior Counsel in M.S.Ahlawat's case [cited supra], wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had set aside the conviction under Section 193 Cr.P.C imposed against the police officials in Afzal's case [cited supra], on the premise that while invoking Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court cannot altogether ignore the substantial provisions of Statute.
10. Thus, from the reading of the above three connected precedents dealt in paragraphs 8 and 9 supra, it becomes amply clear that the initiation of contempt in those cases was only based upon the admission of the parties upon the factum of commission of forgery. But, in the case in hand, the case of forgery is disputed by the 2nd defendant, and in contrast, he owned the authorship of the signature. Therefore, there are no reasons to apply the ratio of the above precedents to the case in hand.
11. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant also relied upon 37/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm ) O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024 other two reported judgments in (i) Nizar Zaffar Lilali's case [cited supra] and (ii)Sudarshan Kumari's case [cited supra]. Even according to the facts of these cases, it is a proxy litigation, viz., by sub lessee. To put it differently, these reported cases are also based upon an admitted position of forgery. The learned Senior Counsel would also rely upon yet another, but recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Perry Kansagra's case reported in (2022) SCC OnLine SC 858, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that tendering of false statement before Court is a direct interference with an administration of justice, and a guilty of contempt of Court. This Court absolutely has no quarrel with the above ratio. But, this Court yet to see the alleged false statement.
12. The learned Senior Counsel would also rely upon yet another judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lalit Popli's case, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, even when expert evidence is not there, the Court has power to compare the writings and decide the matter. But, this decision was clarified in the subsequent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Thiruvengadam Pillai Vs. Navaneethammal and another reported in (2008) 4 SCC 530, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified that the decision in Murari Lal Vs. State of M.P reported 38/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm ) O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024 in (1980) 1 SCC 704 and Lalit Popli's case [cited supra] should not be construed as laying a proposition that the Court is bound to compare the disputed and admitted finger impression and record a finding thereon, irrespective of the condition of the disputed finger impression.
13. We must also keep in mind that the Signature and handwriting identification is not a perfect science as that of the fingerprint identification. Therefore, the reliance of the handwriting expert’s report on it's face value is highly risky, that too in a case where the party owns the authorship of the disputed signature.
14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a recent judgment in Kamalakannan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 476 has extracted Murari Lal’s case to say about the imperfect nature of science of identification of handwriting. The relevant portion in Murari Lal’s case is extracted hereunder:-
“11. We are firmly of the opinion that there is no rule of law, nor any rule of prudence which has crystallised into a rule of law, that opinion-evidence of a handwriting expert must never be acted upon, unless substantially corroborated. But, having 39/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm ) O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024 due regard to the imperfect nature of the science of identification of handwriting, the approach, as we indicated earlier, should be one of caution. Reasons for the opinion must be carefully probed and examined. All other relevant evidence must be considered. In appropriate cases, corroboration may be sought. In cases where the reasons for the opinion are convincing and there is no reliable evidence throwing a doubt, the uncorroborated testimony of an handwriting expert may be accepted. There cannot be any inflexible rule on a matter which, in the ultimate analysis, is no more than a question of testimonial weight. We have said so much because this is an argument frequently met with in subordinate courts and sentences torn out of context from the judgments of this Court are often flaunted.” [emphasise supplied by this Court] What emerges from the above reading is that science of identification of handwriting is having it's own limitation.
15. The learned counsel also relied upon another judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Elumalai's case [cited supra], which deals about the principles when apology could be accepted in a Contempt jurisdiction.
16. While discussing all the above precedents of the appellant, the one underlined factum permeated in all the above reported cases is, the 40/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm ) O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024 admission of the parties regarding the commission of forgery. But, in the case in hand, as already stated, the case of forgery is disputed, contrarily the authorship of the signature was owned by the 2nd defendant. According to him, he is the author of the disputed signature. Therefore, the precedent which had been relied by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, is not applicable to the present facts of this case, as the facts of the case in hand is running counter to the reported case.
17. At this juncture, it is appropriate to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Padma Sundara Rao Vs. State of T.N., reported in (2002) 3 SCC 533, where the constitution Bench has held that, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between the conclusion in two cases. Therefore, the precedents relied by the appellant have no application to the present facts of this case.
18. However, the rulings submitted by the respondent in Sasikala Pushpa’s case [cited supra] would squarely cover the issue in hand. For ready reference, I deem it appropriate to extract the relevant paragraphs hereunder:-
41/71
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm ) O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024 “19. There could be no two views about the proposition that even if forgery is committed outside the precincts of the court and long before its production in the court, it would also be treated as one affecting the administration of justice. But in the present case, the vakalatnama filed by the appellants in Crl. OP (MD) No. 15370 of 2016 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No. 5 of 2016 cannot be said to be a forged document. As pointed out earlier, the appellants have admitted their signatures in the vakalatnama. They only allege that it was mistakenly recorded that it has been signed on 18-8-2016 at Madurai in the presence of the advocate. Of course, the version in the vakalatnama is an incorrect statement. In our opinion, the High Court was not justified in terming the said mistake or error as fraud. Fraud implies intentional deception aimed at achieving some wrongful gain or causing wrongful loss or injury to another. Intention being the mens rea is the essential ingredient to hold that a fraud has been played upon the court. The learned counsel for the State has submitted that upon examination of the signature in the vakalatnama, the handwriting expert has opined that it is not the signature of the appellants and therefore, the intention of the appellants to create a forged document has been clearly made out. We do not find any merit in the submission as the appellants themselves admitted their signatures in the vakalatnama. In the light of the statement of the appellants admitting their signatures in the vakalatnama, we do not think that the opinion of the handwriting expert would stand on any higher 42/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm ) O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024 footing. There is nothing on record to suggest that the appellants gained anything by playing fraud or practising deception. In the absence of any material to substantiate the allegations, in our view, the High Court was not justified in accusing the appellants of fraud.
20. Even assuming that the version in the vakalatnama is wrong, mere incorrect statement in the vakalatnama would not amount to creating a forged document and it cannot be the reason for exercising the jurisdiction under Section 340 CrPC for issuance of direction to lodge the criminal complaint against the appellants.” [emphasise supplied by this Court]
19. According to the facts of the reported case, on the date of signing of vakalat, the author of the signature was not in India, further, the handwriting expert gave opinion that the signature found in the vakalat is not that of the person, who owned the signature. But, still the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, in the backdrop of the party's admission of the authorship of the disputed signatures, there is no merit in considering the expert opinion. Even in the case in hand, similar to that of Sasikala Pushpa's case [cited supra] the deponent signed while he was in America and when such signed affidavit was forwarded to his Advocate office, an inadvertent mistake had crept in by attesting the said signature at Chennai. 43/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm ) O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024 Such a wrong and inadvertent attestation cannot be stretched to an extent of forgery, by mere suspicion. As held in Sasikala Pushpa's case [cited supra], once the deponent accepts the authorship of signature, the question of sending the signature for comparison by an expert would loose it's significance. Accordingly, even in the case in hand, sending the disputed signature for handwriting expert will not arise at all, as the deponent own the authorship of the signature.
20. No doubt in the case in hand, there is a variance between the signature found in the original affidavit and in the rejoinder. But, when the 2nd defendant himself admits his signature found in the original affidavit, the above signature will come within the parameter of another type of variance. It is pertinent to mention here that, the signature of a person is nothing but his physio-psychological movement, which necessarily will have some variance. That is why the experts are expected to get more sample signature. At this juncture, it is also relevant to reiterate that, the science of identification of handwriting is not a perfect science, and the likelihood of errors could not be ruled out. Besides by owning the signature, the deponent would benefit nothing, except arresting the further 44/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm ) O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024 delay.
21. Therefore, I am of the indubitable view that the ratio laid down in Sasikala Pushpa’s case [cited supra]is squarely applies to the facts of the present case. In such a view of the matter, when the deponent own the authorship of the signature, on the mere suspicion raised by the other party, there is no necessity for the Court to send the documents for handwriting expert’s opinion, and to invoke Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act. Besides, from the above detailed discussion, apparently there are no factual foundation to invoke the contempt jurisdiction. Accordingly, I am of the firm view that there are no ground to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge.
22. In the result, the present OSAs are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected CMPs are also closed.
11.06.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
Speaking order/Non speaking order
45/71
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm )
O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024
kmi
To
The Sub Assistant Registrar,
Original Side,
High Court of Madras.
46/71
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm )
O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024
Dr.ANITA SUMANTH, J.
and
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
kmi
Original Side Appeal Nos.131, 132 & 133 of 2024 11.06.2025 47/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm ) O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024 O.S.A.Nos. 131, 132 & 133 of 2024 and C.M.P.Nos. 16751, 23934, 16994, 16744 of 2024 Dr.ANITA SUMANTH,J.
and C.KUMARAPPAN,J.
(Order of the Court was made by Dr.ANITA SUMANTH.,J.) In light of the cleavage of opinion that has arisen on the legal issue, place the matter before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for appropriate orders.
[A.S.M.,J] [C.K.,J]
11.06.2025
sl
48/71
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm ) O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on: 17.09.2025 Delivered on: 25.09.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN O.S.A.Nos.131, 132 & 133 of 2024 and C.M.P.Nos.16751, 23934, 16994, 16744 of 2024 Andromeda Fashions Limited, Represented by its Director, Pradeep Singhania, 11-B, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai – 600 098. ... Appellant in all OSAs /versus/
1. Samir Suri,
2.Samir Suri Inc., Rep. By Samir Suri, 850, South Broadway, Suite 700, Los Angeles CA 90014, United States of America.
3. Mrs.Uma Suri, C-644 New Friends Colony, New Delhi 110 065.
Residing at:
3619 Dunn DR Los Angeles CA – 900 34, USA ... Respondents in all OSAs 49/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm ) O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024 Prayer in O.S.A.No.131 of 2024: Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of the Madras High Court Original Side Rules under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against judgment and decree dated 28.03.2024 in A.No.974 of 2024 in A.No.5583 of 2022 in C.S.No.536 of 1999.
Prayer in O.S.A.No.132 of 2024: Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of the Madras High Court Original Side Rules under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the judgment and decree dated 28.03.2024 in A.No.976 of 2024 in A.No.5583 of 2022 in C.S.No.536 of 1999.
Prayer in O.S.A.No.133 of 2024: Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of the Madras High Court Original Side Rules under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the judgment and decree dated 28.03.2024 in A.No.975 of 2024 in A.No.5583 of 2022 in C.S.No.536 of 1999.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Srinivas, Senior Counsel,
(in all OSAs) for Mr.K.Ashok Kumar.
For Respondents : Mr.K.V.Babu, Senior Counsel,
(in all OSAs) for Mr.S.K.Rameshwar, for R1
***
COMMON JUDGMENT
Prelude:
C.S.No.536 of 1999 is filed for recovery of Rs.62,64,658.40, with interest at the rate of 24% p.a., on the principal amount of Rs.40,67,960/-
from the date of plaint till the date of recovery.50/71
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm ) O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024
2. The suit was decree exparte on 26.04.2012. The decree-holder had resorted to execution of the decree by filing E.P.No.151 of 2013, which was transmitted to Execution Court at Delhi and renumbered as E.P.No.258 of 2013. Subsequently, it was re-transferred to District Court, Delhi and renumbered as E.P.No.210 of 2017. While the Execution Petition is pending, the 1st respondent/judgment debtor has taken out an Application No.5583 of 2022 before the Original Side Jurisdiction of this Court, which has passed decree in C.S.No.536 of 1999.
3. The prayer sought in Application No.5583 of 2022 is as below:-
Application No.5583 of 2022 is filed to set aside the exparte decree along with application to condone delay in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree. The plaintiff, who is the exparte decree holder, has filed counter seeking dismissal of the application to set aside the exparte decree with an enormous delay of 3784 days. Pending the application to set aside the exparte decree, the decree holder has also ventured to take out three Application Nos.974, 975 and 976 of 2024, to initiate contempt proceedings against the 1st defendant for forging the 51/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm ) O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024 signature in the affidavit filed in Application No.5583 of 2022, to send the disputed signature in the affidavit for comparison with the admitted signature to get opinion of the handwriting expert. The decree-holder also request the Court to compare the disputed signature with the admitted signatures through naked eye and proceed.
4. The Learned Single Judge, after considering the prayers in these three Applications Nos.974, 975, 976 of 2024 and the counter, held that the facts and circumstances of the case, the need for comparison of the signature found in the affidavit filed along with A.No.5583 of 2022 does not arise. The signature is not disputed by the executant, who has signed the affidavit. The signature is denied by his advisory. The dispute and the scope for comparison will arise only when one party relies on a document signed by another party and makes out a case in their favour based on the contents of the document and when the executing party denies the signature found in the document. In view of the Learned Single Judge, the 1st respondent (the deponent of the affidavit), has admitted the signature and given a plausible reason why in the jurist portion it is mentioned as executed in Chennai. Since the executant has not disputed the signature, 52/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm ) O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024 the affidavit cannot be treated as false or bogus and therefore, the question of comparison does not arise.
5. The Learned Single Judge, after observing that the application is to condone delay in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree, held that the present Application has been filed only to drag the proceedings without allowing the Court to decide the Application No.5583 of 2022. Therefore, the applications were dismissed, with an observations that though it is a fit case for imposing of costs, the Court refrains from doing so.
6. Being unsatisfied with the observations and dismissal of the three applications, the decree holder/applicant filed an intra-court appeal, which are numbered as O.S.A.Nos.131, 132 and 133 of 2025.
7. Two Learned Judges of this Court, who had gone into the merits of the Applications and the facts, had delivered a split verdict.
While one of them, Dr.Justice Anita Sumanth, had ventured to 53/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm ) O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024 compare the admitted signature with the disputed signature exercising power under Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act held that there is apparent difference between the signatures in Group 1 documents and Group 2 documents.
• Group 1 documents are the signatures found in the affidavit and Vakalatnama.
• Group 2 documents are the signatures found in the 1st rejoinder dated 27.12.2022 and the relinquish deed dated 08.02.2017 as well as the affidavit dated 11.09.2013 and the counter affidavit dated 29.02.2024.
8. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Afzal and another vs. State of Haryana and others reported in (1996) 7 SCC 397, relied wherein the Supreme Court has held that an erroneous statement before the Court amounts to interference in the judicial process, since the disputed signature and admitted signature does not tally, it has to be concluded that fraud has been committed by 1st defendant/judgment debtor.
54/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm ) O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024
9. In respect of the other two appeals arising out of dismissal of the application to initiate the contempt proceedings and to send the documents for expert opinion, the Learned Judge thought fit that having givien a finding regarding the disputed signature by comparison in exercising the powers conferred under Section 73 of the Evidence Act, there was no necessity to obtain opinion of expert.
10. Regarding Application to initiate contempt proceedings, the appeal was dismissed stating that she is not inclined to precipitate the matter at this juncture.
11. Contrarily, the Learned Justice C.Kumarappan, after considering the rival submissions and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Sasikala Pushpa and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2019(6) SCC 477, held that he is of the indubitable view that the ratio laid down in Sasikala Pushpa case squarely applies to the facts of the present case. The variations in the signatures found in the original affidavit and the rejoinder need no testing since the deponent claims the signatures as his own and the deponent would benefit 55/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm ) O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024 nothing by presenting the application with a forged signature. Hence, the Learned Judge observed that when the deponent admits authorship of the signature, on suspicion raised by the other party, there is no necessity for the Court to send the documents for handwriting expert opinion or for comparison. While so, there is no factual foundation to invoke contempt proceedings, hence these three appeals directed against the dismissal of the applications require no interference.
12. The cleavages between the two Learned Judges regarding the need to test the genuineness of the signature found in the affidavit filed to set aside the exparte decree and for condonation of delay stems out the point, whether such an exercise to be done at the instances of the party other than the deponent himself.
13. The Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/decree- holder primarily contended that on the alleged dates of signing the vakalatnama i.e., 19.08.2022, as well as signing the affidavit accompanied with A.No.5583 of 2022 i.e., 04.08.2022, the deponent, who is the 1st 56/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm ) O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024 defendant, was not in India. However, these two documents, namely vakalatnama and the affidavit appear as if the deponent had come down to Chennai and affixed his signature.
14. In the counter filed in Application No.5583 of 2022, it was pointed out that the signatures found in Vakalatnama as well as the affidavit would not have been affixed by the deponent and the signatures are forged. In response, the respondents have come out with a rejoinder stating that the signatures were affixed by him. However, he has admitted that it was not affixed at Chennai. Due to inadvertence the place of execution of the affidavit is wrongly mentioned as Chennai. Additional rejoinder also filed by the respondent/judgment debtor, again admitting ownership of the signature. However, a bare perusal and comparison of the signatures found in Vakalatnama and affidavit with that of the 2nd rejoinder and the relinquished deed executed before the Sub-Registrar, executed on 07.02.2017, the forgery is apparent.
15. The Learned Single Judge erroneously refused to compare the signatures. However, on Appeal, one of the Learned Judges in the Bench 57/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm ) O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024 had undertook the exercise of comparing the admitted signatures with the disputed documents and had come out with the clear finding that the signatures differs. The Learned Judge has observed that the signatures found in the Vakalatnama and Affidavit filed in support of condonation of delay application are not that of the persons who has signed the relinquish deed as well as the 2nd rejoinder. While so, the other Learned Judge had declined to take the exercise of comparison, holding that when the deponent does not deny the signatures, there is no necessity to compare the signatures at the instance of the other party.
16. The Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant claims that it is not mere acceptance or the denial of the signature found in the documents, but it touches upon the Administration of justice. If it is proved that the Vakalatnama as well as the affidavit filed to set aside the ex-parte decree are based on the forged signatures then, it tantamounts interference with the Administration of Justice and hence, to find the truth, the appeals ought to be allowed. The opinion of Dr.Justice Anita Sumanth, relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court render in Afzal and another Vs. State of Haryana and others reported in (1996) 7 SCC 397, 58/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm ) O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024 distinguishing the judgment in Sasikala Pushpa and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2019) 6 SCC 477, has to be upheld.
17. In support of his arguments, the Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant also rely upon the following judgments:
1. S.P.Chengal Varaya Naidu (Dead) by LRs vs. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs and another reported in (1994) 1 SCC 1;
2. Mannalal Khetan and others vs. Kedar Nath Khetan and others reported in (1977) 2 SCC 424.
3. Afzal and another vs. State of Haryana and others reported in (1996) 7 SCC 397.
4. Dy.General Manager redesignated as Dy.Director, ISB and others Vs. Sudarshan Kumari and others reported in (1996) 3 SCC 763;
5. Perry Kansagra, in re reported in (2023) 16 SCC 631.
6. C.Elumalai and others vs. A.G.L.Irudayaraj and another reported in (2009) 4 SCC 213.
7. Lalit Popli vs. Canara Bank and 59/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm ) O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024 others reported in (2003) 3 SCC 583.
8. Ajay Kumar Parmar vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2012 SCC OnLine SC 797.
9. Selvan vs. Azhagan and others reported in 2011 (2) MWN (Civil) 536.
10. National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680.
11. Padma Sundara Rao (Dead) and Others vs. State of T.N and others reported in 2002 SCC OnLine SC 334.
12. Sanjay Kumar Singh vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2022) 7 SCC 247.
18. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submitted that the appellant, who had obtained the ex-parte decree by suppressing the true address of the defendant and by furnishing the false e- mail address, wants to take advantage of his fault and get the ex-parte decree executed. For the said purpose, he is bent upon to make out a case as if the judgment debtor had forged the document, thereby interfering with the Administration of Justice. The authorship of the affidavit and the signature in it is that of the respondent and no person has right to doubt the 60/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm ) O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024 genuineness of his signature.
19. The 1st respondent had admitted that he had signed the Vakalatnama and Affidavit and suit in advance to his Counsel expecting arrival to Chennai. Later, he signed the documents and forwarded them to his Counsel ahead of his visit. However, due to unavoidable reasons, he could not come from US to Chennai. Meanwhile, an application been filed. Having realised that the jurat portion of the affidavit it has been wrongly mentioned that the affidavit been sworn in Chennai, he has filed an Affidavit tendering apology. When there is no malafide intention to commit fraud, the issue need not be sidetracked. The comparison of the signature will arise only if the person who has purported to have signed the document denies the signature.
20. Mr.K.V.Balu, Learned Senior Counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that in this case, Mr.Samir Suri, who is the deponent of the affidavit and the signatory to the vakalatnama, is not denying the signature. There is no wrongful gain for him by forging the signature. The dispute regarding the genuineness of the signature cannot be raised by the 61/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm ) O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024 appellant herein. In any event, while the Court is excepted to decide the application for setting set aside exparte decree on its merits, the appellant herein, by raising the untenable allegations, detracting the process. The Learned Single Judge has rightly observed about the conduct of the appellant herein and also recorded that, though it is a fit case to impose costs, the Court refrain from doing so. In spite of such reprimand, the appellant not ready to face the application to set aside the exparte order which was obtained by furnishing false e-mail address but he wants to torpedo the lawful right of the judgment debtor to contest the suit on merits.
21. Heard Mr.R.Srinivas, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.K.Ashok Kumar, Learned Counsel for the appellant, and Mr.K.V.Babu, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.S.K.Rameshwar, Learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent.
22. The scope of reference to the Third Judge is in the given facts and circumstances; Whether the signature found in the affidavit accompanied with the application for set aside the exparte order needs to 62/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm ) O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024 be tested.
23. This Court had advantage of perusing the opinions of two Learned Judges, who had recorded own reasoning for their conclusions. The Learned Senior Judge (Dr.Justice Anita Sumanth) thought fit that it is a case where the disputed signature to be compared with the admitted signature and a finding to be given. Whereas, the Learned Junior Judge (Justice C.Kumarappan), considering the facts of the case has held that the comparison of the signature is of no consequence when the deponent admits the signature and want to establish the contents of the document which he has sworn.
24. The prime contention of the appellant is that by forging the signature in the affidavit and Vakalatnama, to show as if the deponent was in Chennai and the application to set aside the ex-parte decree is filed. Thus, fraud been committed on the Court with an intention to prevent the due execution of the decree. It is contended that the respondent cannot claim a premium over his act of forgery.
63/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm ) O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024
25. Referring to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, where the Apex Court had taken strong exception to the conduct of forging the signatures in the affidavit and vakalatnama, the Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the dictum laid down in Afzal and another vs. State of Haryana and others reported in (1996) 7 SCC 397 and Perry Kansagra, in re reported in (2023) 16 SCC 631, squarely applies to the facts of the present case.
26. Per contra, Mr.K.V.Babu, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submitted that the reasoning of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sasikala Pushpa (cited supra) squarely applies to the facts of the present case. The deponent admits the signature in the document and he gains nothing by forging his own signature. In the absence of material to show that the forgery in the affidavit will give an undue advantage to the respondent over the appellant, the issue need not be carried any further. The Learned Senior Counsel for the 1st respondent also submit that fresh affidavit sworn before the Notary Public at USA has been submitted to give quietest to the controversy raised. The attempt of the appellant to delay the disposal of the application to set aside the exparte decree and to 64/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm ) O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024 pressurise the Execution Court to proceed with the Execution Application, should be taken note by this Court and prevent miscarriage of justice.
27. To buttress his submission, the following judgments relied by the respondent herein.
(i) Mobarik Ali Ahmed vs. The State of Bombay reported in AIR 1957 SC 857.
(ii) Sasikala Pushpa and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2019) 6 SCC 477.
(iii) Atlanta Infrastructure Ltd vs. Delta Marine Company reported in 2021 (20) SCC 593.
(iv) K.S.Nageswara Aiyar vs.S.Ganesa Aiyar reported in 1942 (2) MLJ 198.
28. The core issue between the parties in the Civil Suit is whether the ex-parte decree obtained by the plaintiff is to be set aside for the reasons stated in the affidavit accompanied to the petition. The fact in issue is whether the contents in the affidavit is sufficient to set aside the ex-parte decree. The first defendant in the suit, who is the deponent of the affidavit, owns the authorship and the signature in the affidavit. When the 65/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm ) O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024 author of the document owns its contents and signature, whether there is any legal necessity at all to subject the signature for comparison is the point of cleavage between the two Learned Judges.
29. Unlike the facts of the case in hand, in Afzal case (cited supra), the deponent of the affidavit, namely, M.S.Ahlawat had admitted forgery. Hence, the Court had not probed whether the signature in the affidavit is forged, it had proceeded on the admission of the party that the signature was forged. We further find that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, though initially took action for perjury under Section 193 of I.P.C and convicted M.S.Ahlawat for deliberate fabrication of records. Later, realising that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has wrongly assumed original criminal jurisdiction to proceed against the petitioner without following the procedure prescribed under Sections 195 and 340 of Cr.P.C. The Court fairly recorded that it had acted without jurisdiction and without following the procedure prescribed. It further observed that, ‘to perpetuate an error is no virtue, but to correct it is a compulsion of judicial conscience’.
30. In Re : Perry Kansagra case [cited supra] relied by the 66/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm ) O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024 appellant, the facts are entirely different. In this case, the Supreme Court had taken suo motu contempt since it was found that by filing false affidavit, the custody of the minor child was taken away from the territorial jurisdiction of the Indian Courts. While exercising its parens patriae jurisdiction, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against the petitioner, who obtained the order of custody of the child by suppressing the order passed by the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi. The Hon’ble Supreme Court proceeded with the contempt action after being satisfied that, the false and fraudulent representations made by Perry Kansagra were the foundation, on the basis of which this Court was persuaded to hand over custody of the minor child, Aditya to him. Therefore, as rightly observed by the Learned Junior Judge in this case, the alleged forgery is not the foundation of the litigation but merely an issue raised by the appellant herein on suspicion. By playing a “Red Herring” role, the appellant is trying to evade facing the allegation that the exparte decree was obtained behind the back of the respondent herein, without due service of suit summons.
31. No doubt, Sections 45 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 67/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm ) O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024 enable the Court to get opinion of an expert or to compare the handwriting by the Court itself and arrive at an opinion about the allegation of forgery. However, the necessity to invoke these provisions will arise only when the writing is the foundation dispute in the litigation. Further, the opinion obtained from the expert or the opinion formed by comparison by the Court itself is not a conclusive proof. Therefore, whatever be the reason stated to refer a document for comparison under Section 45 or Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is the duty of the Court first to ascertain whether there is any necessity to resort such exercise and whether an opinion on the signature anyway will help the Court to decide the issue forming the foundation to the litigation.
32. In this case, the main issue is whether the appellant herein/the plaintiff in C.S.No.536 of 1999 is entitled for the exparte decree. The affidavit of the respondent herein/first defendant, states that the suit summons not served in the manner known to law. The authorship and signature in the affidavit is owned by the respondent. He admits the signature and had tendered apology for wrongly mentioning the place of signing as Chennai in the jurat portion.
68/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm ) O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024
33. On similar facts, in Sasikala Pushpa case (cited supra), it was contended before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that, on examination of signatures, the handwriting experts had opined that it is not the signature of the appellant, and therefore, the intention of the appellants to create a forged document has been clearly made out. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, has categorically held that, “we do not find any merit in the submission as the appellants themselves admit their signatures in the vakalatnama”. In the light of the statement of the appellants admitting the signatures in the vakalatnama, we do not think that the opinion of the handwriting expert would stand on any higher footings.
34. With the catena of judgments cited on either side and referred above, judgments invariable says only if the forgery alleged is foundation to the litigation action required. In most of the cases cited, the deponent had admitted forgery or admitted/found to be false and such false statement made intentionally to commit fraud on the Court. Whereas, it the case in hand, the deponent owns the signature in the affidavit and the content of the affidavit. The foundational fact in issue is not the signature 69/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm ) O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024 in the affidavit, but the content in the affidavit. Hence, no legal necessity to test the signatures in the affidavit arise. The suspicion of the appellant about the genuineness of the signatures of the deponent, is irrelevant to decide the fact in issue. Hence, the signature admitted by the deponent has to be taken on its face value and the duty of the Court is to test the contents of the affidavit.
35. Hence, I concur with the view and findings of Hon’ble Justice C.Kumarappan.
36. Accordingly, the Original Side Appeals stands dismissed. In the light of the above findings, the petition in C.M.P.No.23934 of 2024 is filed to receive the opinion of the private forensic laboratory as additional document stands dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
25.09.2025
Index :Yes.
Internet :Yes/No.
Neutral Citation :Yes/No.
70/71
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm )
O.S.A.Nos. 131 to 133 of 2024
bsm
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
bsm
Pre-delivery common judgment made in
O.S.A.Nos.131, 132 & 133 of 2024
and
C.M.P.Nos.16751, 23934, 16994 & 16744 of 2024 25.09.2025 71/71 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2025 04:54:08 pm )