Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The respondent is the plaintiff, who laid suit against the petitioner on the foot of a promissory note dated 10.08.2015 alleged to have had been executed for Rs.5,00,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at 18% per annum compounded and in all, his suit claim is for Rs.6,43,250/- inclusive interest. The defence of the petitioner in the written statement is one of denial of execution of promissory note and specific plea of forgery is raised.

4. It appears that in the course of trial, the respondent examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A3. He also examined one of the attestors to Ex.A1 promissory note as P.W.2. At that stage, when the suit was coming up for further evidence of the respondent, the petitioner filed the above petition.

10. Now, the point for determination is whether learned trial Judge was right in exercising his discretion in refusing to forward the suit promissory note to hand-writing expert for comparison of the signature appearing therein with the admitted signatures?

11. It is fundamental that every opportunity should be given to the parties to the suit to adduce evidence at the trial and place such material in support of their respective contentions. The nature of the defence set up by the petitioner in the suit as referred above is one of denial of the promissory note and the signature attributed to her in it as a forgery. In such an event, when the respondent as the plaintiff lets in evidence to support his claim and to prove the execution of the suit promissory note, the petitioner will have a right to cross-examine these witnesses and possibly elicit such material in support of her defence.

12. At the same time, when she has set up such a plea in the written statement she cannot be called upon to prove in negative that the signature attributed to her in the suit promissory note is a forgery. In that process, the petitioner as defendant could let in evidence on her behalf and possibility to set out certain circumstances which probablise her defence that the document was so forged and fabricated on account of the nature of relationship or background of the transaction. Usually the assistance of a Hand-writing expert is sought to support such defence. It is too early for the Court to decide whether the evidence of the Hand-writing expert is acceptable or otherwise or whether it could be a substitute for direct evidence. None the less, possibility of securing valuable assistance to the Court by an opinion of an expert is very much seen in such circumstances and to evaluate the veracity of nature of claim and defence set forth by the parties to the suit. Viewed from such prospective, every opportunity should be given to the defendant particularly when the nature of defence, is such that as is seen in the present case. Therefore, the first ground on which the learned trial Judge sought to reject the request of the petitioner, categorising the nature of evidence of the expert is not proper.