Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Promissory note forgery in Soman vs S.Suma on 4 February, 2014Matching Fragments
3. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant brought Exhibit-A1 promissory note and affixed his signature in the presence of the plaintiff and witnesses. The defendant contended that there was no occasion for him to borrow any such amount from the plaintiff and that he has never executed Exhibit- A1 promissory note. He has specifically denied the signature affixed in the promissory note. According to him, the promissory note is the result of forgery.
4. The trial court disbelieved the versions of the defendant and believed the versions of the plaintiff and decreed the suit. Even though, it was appealed against, the appeal was also not successful. It has come out that before the trial court as well as the lower appellate court, the defendant had attempted to get Exhibit-A1 examined by an Expert in order to show that the signature in Exhibit-A1 was not affixed by the defendant. The defendant had filed I.A.No.681 of 2010, before the Munsiff's Court, in the suit, for getting the promissory note examined by an Expert to prove that the signature in it was not affixed by the defendant. The Munsiff's Court dismissed the I.A. on the ground that admitted signatures were not made available by the defendant and he had only supplied his specimen signatures. According to the defendant, he had no such admitted signatures with him and he did not remember anything about the availability of some admitted contemporary signatures.
8. In the written statement also specifically the defendant denied the execution of the promissory note and the transaction. When the contentions that the promissory note is an out come of forgery and the signature shown in Exhibit-A1 was not affixed by the defendant were taken from the very beginning, the appellate court was too hyper technical and harsh in dismissing the I.A.No.75 of 2014. It seems that the trial court as well as the lower appellate court have not made any attempt to compare the signature shown in Exhibit-A1 with the admitted signatures of the defendant.