Madras High Court
P.Sivakumar vs Ramesh on 19 December, 2014
Author: P.R.Shivakumar
Bench: P.R.Shivakumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19.12.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR C.R.P (PD) No.2083 of 2012 & M.P.No.1 of 2012 P.Sivakumar ...Petitioner vs. Ramesh ...Respondent Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 19.03.2012 in I.A.No.549 of 2011 in O.S.No.156 of 2009 on the file of Principal Sub Judge, Tiruvannamalai. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Rajan For Respondent : Mrs.S.Suseeladevi ------ ORDER
The second defendant in the original suit O.S.No.156 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai is the petitioner in the present revision. The said suit was filed by the respondent herein against one Babu, arrayed as first defendant in the suit and the revision petitioner herein (second defendant in the suit) for recovery of money due on a pronote dated 20.04.2009 allegedly executed jointly by both the defendants.
2. The revision petitioner is contesting the suit totally denying any loan transaction between the plaintiff and himself. It is also his contention that he did not execute any pronote jointly with Babu in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and that the signatures found in the suit promissory note is not his signature and on the other hand, it is a rank forgery.
3. The suit is in the part heard stage. At that stage, the petitioner filed a petition I.A.No.549 of 2011 for referring the disputed document to a handwriting expert for opinion after comparing with the signatures of the petitioner herein found in the vakalat and the written statement. The said petition was resisted contending that the petition was intended to drag on the case. It was also contended on behalf of the respondent that the documents sought to be compared with the disputed document are unsuitable for scientific comparison since they came into existence after the institution of the suit and there was every possibility of the signatures of the petitioner being disguised in those documents with the intention of using them for comparison to disprove the case of the respondent. The learned trial Judge upheld the objection raised by the respondent herein and dismissed the petition by order dated 19.03.2012. Challenging the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India invoking the power of superintendence of this Court.
4. The arguments advanced by Mr.Mr.G.Rajan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and by Mrs.S.Suseeladevi, learned counsel for the respondent are heard and the materials available on record in the form of typed-set of papers are also perused.
5. The suit is based on a promissory note allegedly executed by the petitioner herein jointly with another person by name Babu, who figures as a co-defendant in the suit. The case of the petitioner is that he never borrowed any amount from the respondent and the suit promissory note itself is a forged one and that the signature found therein is not that of the petitioner. Of course, the respondent /plaintiff shall have the other modes of proving his case, namely by examining the persons through whom the transaction was made besides the scribe and the attestors, if any, of the promissory note. When the petitioner herein is having the difficult job of disproving the execution of the promissory note, that too, when he disputes his signature found therein, the most viable way shall be to refer the document to a handwriting expert for opinion after comparing the same with the proved or admitted signature of the revision petitioner. However, the respondent seems to have taken a valid defence before the trial Court that the documents which were sought to be used for comparison were unsuitable for the said purpose as they came into existence after the institution of the suit and there was every possibility of the revision petitioner disguising his signature with the intention of using it for disproving the signature found in the disputed promissory note.
6. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner now submits that the petitioner is prepared to produced two registered documents of the years 2002 and 2008 respectively for the use of the handwriting expert for comparison and that the petitioner may be permitted to produce those documents and on such production, the disputed document along with those documents may be referred to the Handwriting expert for opinion. Learned counsel for the respondent also does not have any serious objection, provided a time limit is fixed for the production of the documents containing the admitted signatures and also for the disposal of the case itself.
7. In view of the above said submission, this Court is of the view that the order of the learned trial Judge has got to be modified. Accordingly the order of the trial Court is modified with the following direction:
The petitioner shall be permitted to produce the admitted contemporary documents, namely registered documents of the years 2002 and 2008 containing the signatures of the petitioner, within two weeks from today before the trial Court with a memo to that effect. On such production, the learned trial Judge shall refer the disputed document along with the admitted documents to the Regional Forensic Laboratory for being compared by the Handwriting expert for his opinion. Thereafter, the trial Court shall proceed with the recording of further evidence and dispose of the case within six weeks from the date of receipt of the report from the handwriting expert. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
19.12.2014 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No gpa P.R.SHIVAKUMAR.J., gpa To The Principal Sub Judge Tiruvannamalai C.R.P (PD) No.2083 of 2012 & M.P.No.1 of 2012 19.12.2014