Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

-

This revision petition is filed questioning the rejection of the application I.A.No.129 of 2011 in O.S.No.24 of 2009 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta.

2. The petitioners in I.A.No.129 of 2011 are the defendants in a suit filed for recovery of money based on a promissory note. The defendants have taken a plea that the suit promissory note, which is marked as Ex.A-1, is a rank forgery. Therefore, when the evidence of chief examination of PWs.1 to 3 was filed in the court, the present application I.A.129 of 2011 was filed to send the document, namely Ex.A-1, to an expert for comparison of the signatures. The application was opposed by the plaintiff/respondent. After hearing both the learned counsel, the application was dismissed on the ground that the suit promissory note pertains to the year 2007 and the application is filed in the year 2011 and that there are no contemporaneous signatures available for comparison. This order that was passed on 22-07-2013 is impugned in the present revision petition.

6. This court after hearing both the learned counsel is of the opinion that the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the respondent is not really applicable. In the case on hand, in the written statement a plea was taken that the promissory note is a rank forgery. The application is filed at the stage of cross examination of PWs.1 to 3. The suit was filed in the year 2009. Issues were framed on 09-12-2009 and thereafter the application was filed to send the document to an expert. A foundation has already been taken at the written statement that the suit promissory note is a forgery. Therefore, the petitioners have a right to send the same for an expert's opinion. Even in the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the respondent, the learned single judge of this court held that the lapse or delay in furnishing admitted signatures would not stop the trial court from ordering the petition. In the case on hand, the written statement, vakalat etc., are already available on the record of the court. Whether the signatures sent for comparison with the signatures on the promissory note are comparable or not or whether due to the lapse of time changes have occurred is a matter for the expert and for the court to decide when the report is finally furnished. On the ground that the delay has occurred evidence cannot be DVSS,J CRP_736_2014 shut out more so when it requires expert investigation. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that the judgment cited in Penumastha Ramachandra Raju (supra) is more applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. The application that is filed is not really belated in the opinion of this court as it is filed at the stage of cross examination of the plaintiff's witnesses.