Madras High Court
Asraf Ali vs Sp.Palaniappan on 23 July, 2015
Author: K.K.Sasidharan
Bench: K.K.Sasidharan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 23.07.2015
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN
C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.685 of 2014
and
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014
Asraf Ali : Petitioner
Vs.
SP.Palaniappan : Respondent
Prayer
Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India to set aside the judgment and decree dated 10.02.2014
passed in I.A.No.896 of 2013 in O.S.No.137 of 2011, on the file of Sub Court,
Pudukkottai.
!For Petitioner : Mr.RMS.Sethuraman,
For Mr.K.Baalasundharam
^For Respondent : Mr.D.Ramesh Kumar
:ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 10 February, 2014 in I.A.No.896 of 2013 in O.S.No.137 of 2011, whereby and whereunder, the learned Subordinate Judge, Pudukkottai, was pleased to dismiss the application filed by the petitioner invoking Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act.
2. The respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.137 of 2011 before the Sub Court, Pudukkottai, claiming a sum of Rs.3,10,000/- on the basis of a promissory note stated to have been executed by the petitioner.
3. The suit was contested by the petitioner by filing written statement.
4. The Trial Court recorded the evidence of P.W.1. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.896 of 2013 alleging that there is material alteration in the promissory note and as such, the same should be sent for Expert opinion. The application was opposed by the respondent by filing counter.
5. The learned Trial Judge dismissed the application with an observation that the idea is only to drag on the proceedings. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 10 February, 2014, the petitioner is before this Court.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent.
7. The suit in O.S.No.137 of 2011 was filed by the respondent on the strength of a promissory note stated to have been executed by the petitioner. The petitioner, in his written statement, admitted that he availed financial assistance from the respondent on several occasions. According to the petitioner, he has already repaid the money to the respondent on installment basis including interest. It is the further case of the petitioner that he has signed 7 blank promissory notes at the instance of the respondent.
8. The petitioner, in his application in I.A.No.896 of 2013, contended that the promissory note for a sum of Rs.10,000/- was subjected to material alteration by adding '3' and thereby, making it for a sum of Rs.3,10,000/-. The petitioner, therefore, wanted the document to be sent to an Expert for opinion.
9. The learned Trial Judge dismissed the application primarily on the ground that it was only after taking several adjournments for the purpose of cross-examination of P.W.1, the application was filed. The learned Trial Judge also observed that the Court is competent to verify the document by invoking Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act.
10. It is true that the application in I.A.No.896 of 2013 was filed only after commencement of trial. It is to be noted that there is no time limit prescribed for filing an application for Expert opinion. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the respondent committed forgery by adding a figure to make it appear as if promissory note was issued for a sum of Rs.3,10,000/-. The petitioner has got his own reasons for raising such apprehension. It is true that the petitioner has not taken up any such contention expressly in his reply notice. However, there is an indication in his reply notice and written statement to the effect that he has signed blank promissory notes.
11. The learned Trial Judge wanted to compare the document to arrive at a decision as to whether there was any material alteration. In case the facilities are available to find out as to whether there was any material alteration in the promissory note, such a course should have been adopted by the learned Trial Judge. The Court is not an Expert in a matter of this nature. Merely because the Court is having power under Section 73 to compare the signature, it cannot be said that in all such cases, the Court itself should compare the document and there is no need to send for Expert opinion. I am, therefore, of the view that the learned Trial Judge was not correct in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner.
12. In the result, the order dated 10 February, 2014, is set aside. The application in I.A.No.896 of 2013 is allowed.
13. In the upshot, I allow the Civil Revision Petition. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To The Sub Court, Pudukkottai.
.