Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. As will be seen from the prayers in the Motion, which I have set out above, what the 3rd Defendant now wants is that I should reverse the decisions of SJ Kathawalla J and KR Shriram J on both the Summary Suit and the Summons for Judgment. In essence, the argument is that there is a Promissory Note at pages 19 and 20 of the Plaint rendered in a photocopy which does not bear the 3rd Defendant's signature. However in separate criminal proceedings another version of this document has been produced showing the 3rd Defendant's signature. How can this be? Cries Mr Rao, unless it is all a forgery. But what is the forgery, and where is it? The Plaintif did not ever say the promissory note at pages 19 and 20 was signed by the 3rd Defendant. Indeed, he said the exact opposite. The decree in question was thus not on the basis of a promissory note bearing the 3rd Defendant's signature, and which the 3rd Defendant can say is forged. How the lack of a signature on a document amounts to a forging of the signature is unclear. Mr Panicker has some complicated explanation about how a version of the promissory note came before the criminal court, but on this he is clear: his suit is not based on the promissory note that allegedly bears the 3rd Defendant's signature and which came to be produced before the criminal court.