BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 04/01/2008 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA C.R.P. (PD)(MD) No.1292 OF 2007 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2007 K.Annadurai ... Petitioner Versus A.Natesan ... Respondents Prayer Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order in I.A.No.176 of 2007 in O.S.No.178 of 2004 dated 09.03.2007 on the file of Sub Court, Karur. !For Petitioner ... Mr.V.Bharathidasan ^For Respondent ... Mr.K.Govindarajan :ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to get set aside the order
dated 09.03.2007 passed in I.A.No.176 of 2007 in O.S.No.178 of 2004, on the file
of the Sub Court, Karur.
2. Heard both sides.
3. A re’sume’ of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal
of this Civil Revision Petition would run thus:
The respondent herein filed the suit O.S.No.178 of 2004 as against the
defendant for recovery of money based on a promissory note, which the petitioner
herein denies it as a genuine one. According to the petitioner herein, the said
promissory note was a forged and fabricated one; purely for the purpose of
mulcting the petitioner with the undue responsibility to pay the money the
respondent had chosen to file the suit. The petitioner filed I.A.No.176 of 2007
before the trial Court seeking order to send the disputed document to the
expert and to obtain opinion as to whether the impugned signature found on the
promissory note is a genuine or a fabricated one. However, the trial Court
dismissed it on the main ground that no sample document had been filed and that
the name of the expert from whom the opinion should be sought, was not
furnished.
4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of dismissal, this
civil revision petition has been focussed on the following grounds inter-alia
thus:
The trial Court should not have dismissed I.A.No.176 of 2007, but on the
other hand the Court itself could have chosen as to which extent should be
summoned for giving opinion regarding the genuineness of the signature found in
the promissory note.
5. The point for consideration is as to whether the petitioner is entitled
to get the impugned document viz. the suit promissory note examined by a
handwriting expert?
6. Point: It is a trite proposition of law that whenever the defendant at
the earliest point of time challenges the genuineness of the signature found in
the document and seeks examination of the impugned document by an expert the
trial Court is bound to consider the plea in depth and pass suitable order, so
that the objectivity can be achieved. No doubt it is for the plaintiff to prove
his case by examining the attestors if any and the scribe and by adducing
other relevant evidences. On the other hand the defendant also has got the
right to prove the falsity of the document by taking the assistance of an
expert. In my considered opinion there should have been no hesitation on the
part of the trial Court in allowing the I.A.No.176 of 2007 and that too in the
absence of any finding that for the purpose of protracting the proceedings or
purely for the purpose of causing annoyance to the plaintiff such I.A. was
filed. In this case I could see that at the earliest point of time the
petitioner filed the petition to get the promissory note examined by a
handwriting expert.
7. Now then the petitioner has produced two sample documents, relating to
which the learned counsel for the respondent correctly and convincingly would
submit that instead of relying on those two documents produced by the petitioner
as sample documents, the trial Court could be directed to summon some sample
document which might be in the possession of public authorities. I could see
considerable force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the
respondent.
8. Accordingly, the order of the the Sub Court, Karur, dated 09.03.2007
passed in I.A.No.176 of 2007 in O.S.No.178 of 2004, is set aside and the Sub
Judge, Karur is directed to summon the sample signature of the petitioner
herein which might be available with the State Bank of India, Karur, so that the
expert summoned by the Court could come to the Court and take photo copies of
the sample signatures found in the document that would be produced by the bank
as well as in the impugned document and thereafter submit his report after
examining and comparing the signatures concerned. Consequently, the connected
M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2007 is closed. No costs.
sj
To
1. The Sub Court,
Karur.