Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. The civil Court proceedings initiated by the 1st petitioner herein in O.S.No.510 of 2017, the Judgment has been delivered after full-fledged trial by the learned First Additional Sub Judge, on 20.09.2019. In the suit proceedings, the first petitioner had examined himself as P.W.1. The 3rd petitioner as P.W.3 and the 3rd accused as P.W.2 and 4 exhibits have been marked of which Ex.A1 is the forged promissory note. The defacto complainant had examined as D.W.1; D.W.2 is the Assistant Director of Government Forensic Sciences Lab, Bangalore. The promissory note subjected to Forensic study. From the Forensic report, which is marked as Ex.C1, dated 11.10.2013. It is proved that the signature found in the promissory note is not that of the 2nd respondent / defacto complainant. The 1st petitioner had filed the civil suit based on the forgery promissory note. The forged promissory note is produced by the 1st petitioner. The first petitioner is none other than the father of the 2nd petitioner/A2. It is seen that A2 was a tenant under the defacto complainant / R2, during the period 2005 to January 2007 and while vacating, he has caused damages to the tune of Rs.59,000/- and had a rental due of Rs.60,000/-. The defacto complainant insisted A2 to rectify the defects and restore the electrical equipment and accessories. This dispute is from January 2007.