← Library
Madras High CourtCRP/1924/2012dismissed

A.Babu v. I.Ramesh

2018-10-01Honourable Ms. Justice P.T. Asha7 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 01.10.2018 Coram The Honourable Ms.Justice P.T.ASHA C.R.P(PD)No.1924 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012 A.Babu

...Petitioner

Versus

Ramesh

...Respondent

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 19.03.2012 in I.A.No.548 of 2011 in O.S.No.156 of 2009 on the file of Principal Sub Judge, Tiruvannamalai. For Petitioner :

Mr.R.Rajarajan For Respondent :

Notice sent to respondent returned with the endorsement, "unclaimed".

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order of dismissal in I.A.No.548 of 2011 filed by the revision petitioner who is the first defendant in the Suit in O.S.No.156 of 2009 to compare the signature in the disputed promissory note with the signature in the Vakalat.

2. The suit in O.S.No.156 of 2009 was filed by the respondent herein claiming a sum of Rs.1,59,000/- due on promissory note dated 20.04.2009. The revision petitioner disputed the signature and stated that the promissory note is a forged document. He denied the execution as well as the receipt of consideration. When the matter was posted for trial, the revision petitioner came forward with the impugned Application in I.A.No.548 of 2011. The reasons given in the affidavit filed in support of the Application was that when he had examined the promissory note in the Court, he was shocked to see that the signature in the Promissory Note is not his signature. Therefore, he has taken out the impugned Application to compare the

signature viz., in the Vakalat with the signature in the Promissory Note and to send the admitted signatures and disputed signatures to the hand writing expert to get an opinion from the Forensic Lab situated at Chennai.

3. The respondent herein had objected to the said petitions stating that the suit is part heard and the Application is belated. That apart, the respondent had contended that the signatures in the Vakalat and Written Statement would have been deliberately changed by the revision petitioner and that the comparison should be with the contemporaneous documents. The revision petitioner had not produced any other document to show his signature and the respondent would also contend that he has known the revision petitioner for several years and he was called A.Babu and would sign only as it Babu and now he has changed his name as Mohideen Basha and therefore, the comparison would be futile.

4. The learned Principal Sub Judge, Tiruvannamalai rejecting the Applications stated that the documents which the

revision petitioner seeks to send for comparison has come into existence after the promissory note and therefore, it cannot advance the case of the revision petitioner. With this observation, the learned Principal Sub Judge, Tiruvannamalai had dismissed I.A.No.548 of 2011. Challenging the same, the revision petitioner is before this Court.

5. Heard Mr.G.Rajarajan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

6. It has been time and again held that the comparison of the signatures cannot be made with the signatures put in the pleadings since there is a tendency to bring about a change in the signatures. The procedure should be to have the signatures compared with the contemporaneous signatures. The revision petitioner is now calling himself as Mohideen Basha and therefore, comparing the signature in the Vakalat with the signature in the promissory notice would not serve any purpose. The revision petitioner has not produced any contemporaneous documents with which the signature can be compared. I find no

infirmity in the order of the learned Principal Sub Judge, Tiruvannamalai.

7. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and the order passed by the learned Principal Sub Judge, Tiruvannamalai in I.A.No.548 of 2011 in O.S.No.156 of 2009 dated 19.03.2012 is confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

01.10.2018 mrr Index : Yes/No

P.T.ASHA, J., mrr To The Principal Sub Judge, Tiruvannamalai.

C.R.P(PD)No.1924 of 2012 01.10.2018