Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Defendant No.1 in his written statement took a plea that promissory note is forgery and he denied his signature as such defendant No.3 filed application under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act to send the suit document with the admitted signature of his father over written statement, Vakalathnama of his father to the opinion of Hand Writing expert and the same was allowed on 20.09.2023 vide I.A.No.286 of 2023 but the FSL returned the documents for want of other required documents for verification as such he filed this I.A and stated that one is Original Simple Agreement, dated 04.02.2016, Original Pan Card and Original Job Identity Card are filed in the concerned Court and they can be sent for comparison. Apart from that FSL authorities required cheques, Account opening form, sale deeds, wills, agreements, withdrawal forms etc., for comparison. As defendant No.1 is no more petitioner herein intended to call for documents filed by him before First Class Magistrate at Narsampet. He filed copies of I.A.No.2 of 2023 as additional documents. The trial Court observed that pan and identity cards are the only computerized extracts and not originals as such it appears that the said cards are not helpful to the FSL authorities in giving their opinion as sought. Further the agreement dated 04.02.2016 appears to have been internal agreement and it does not bear the signature of his wife and thus application was dismissed.

5. It is the plea of defendant No.1 that promissory note is forgery and it is for him to prove the same as such initially he filed an application to send documents to the expert but it was returned and FSL authorities called for more documents for comparison. Therefore, the petitioner herein not only mentioned three documents in his application and also intended to sought for some more documents filed by him before the Junior Civil Judge. Therefore, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable set aside the order of the trial Court.