V.Chinniah vs Pitchaimuthu on 25 July, 2003

Madras High Court
V.Chinniah vs Pitchaimuthu on 25 July, 2003




DATED: 25/07/2003



C.R.P.PD.No.1481 of 2003
CMP No.10528 of 2003

V.Chinniah                                     .. Petitioner


Pitchaimuthu                                   .. Respondent

        This civil revision petition is preferred under Sec.115 of The Code of
Civil Procedure against the order  dated  31.3.2003  in  I.A.No.411/20  03  in
O.S.No.153/2002 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Karur.

!For Petitioner :  Mr.N.Ananthapadmanabhan

^For Respondent :   ---


Heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner. The Court is
of the view that in order to avoid the avoidable delay, notice to the opposite
party is not necessary, and the available materials would be suffice to give
disposal to the revision.

2. What is challenged herein is an order of the learned Subordinate
Judge, Karur dismissing an application to send Ex.A-1 promissory note for
comparison of the signatures found therein with the admitted signatures by an
expert in the field of handwriting.

3. It was a suit filed by the respondent for a money decree based on
a promissory note marked as Ex.A1. Following the written statement filed by
the defendant, the revision petitioner herein, issues were framed. The trial
has actually started. It is pertinent to point out that the plaintiff’s
evidence was over. When the defendant was about to march his witness in order
to prosecute his defence, the instant application was filed by the defendant
seeking for sending Ex.A1 promissory note to the handwriting expert for
comparison on the ground that the signature found in the document was not that
of the defendant. It is brought to the notice of the Court by the learned
Counsel for the petitioner that without the comparison of the signature, his
defence cannot be brought home, and hence, it would be very necessary to send
the document for comparison to the handwriting expert. The lower Court has
dismissed the application pointing out that the application was filed pending
defendant’s evidence. The Court is of the considered view that the lower
Court was perfectly correct in holding so. It has to be noted that sufficient
opportunity was available for the party all along. But, the instant
application has been filed at the time when the plaintiff’s evidence was over
and the defendant was called upon to march his evidence. The petitioner has
sought for such a relief before the lower Court only with a view to protract
the trial proceedings, and thus, such a course cannot be allowed. The Court
does not find reason to interfere in the order of the lower Court. At the
same time, the Court is of the view that a direction has got to be given to
the lower Court to compare the signature found in Ex. A1 promissory note in
question along with the admitted signatures available and to take a decision
in the case.

4. Therefore, the lower Court is directed to exercise powers under
Sec.73 of the Evidence Act before arriving at a correct conclusion. It is
brought to the notice of the Court by the learned Counsel for the petitioner
that the matter has been posted for arguments, and opportunity has not been
given to the defendant to project his evidence. Hence, the lower Court is
also directed to give an opportunity to the revision petitioner/defendant, if
not given already, to adduce his evidence both oral and documentary. With
these directions, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected C.M.P. is also dismissed.

Index: Yes
Internet: Yes


The Subordinate Judge, Karur.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information