This judgment dismisses a civil revision petition challenging a first appellate decree in a money recovery suit based on a promissory note. The High Court held that Section 73 comparison is supportive but not conclusive, noting oral evidence was properly considered.
The civil revision petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/21ST MAGHA, 1938
CRP.No. 395 of 2015 (B)
AGAINST THEJUDGMENT IN RFA.NO.35/2004 OF SUB COURT,KOTTARAKKARA DATED 31.3.2015
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OS.NO.152/2002 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOTTARAKKARA, DATED 16.10.2003
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT :
MURALEEDHARAN S/O. GOPALAN, AMBADIYIL VEEDU, KADAKKODU, KAREEPRA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK.
BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF :
SIVAPRASAD, S/O. GOPALAN, PRASAD MANDIRAM, KADAKKODU, KAREEPRA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.02.2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
I.A.NO.1722/2015 IN C.R.P.NO.395/2015
CLOSED
10/02/2017
SD/- P.SOMARAJAN, JUDGE
//TRUE COPY//
AHZ/
P.Somarajan, J.
C.R.P.No.395 of 2015 (B)
Dated this the 10th day of February, 2017.
O R D E R
This revision is filed by the defendant against the first appellate decree and judgment in R.F.A.No.35 of 2004 of the Sub Court, Kottarakkara dated 31.3.2015. The said appeal was preferred against the decree and judgment passed by the Munsiff's Court, Kottarakkara in O.S.No.152 of 2002 dated 16.10.2003. Admittedly, the suit was filed for recovery of money based on a promissory note. The defendant in turn disputed the execution of the promissory note and also denied the signature affixed in the promissory note. The lower court, on accepting the oral evidence tendered by PW1, the plaintiff, and one independent witness (PW2), who is a signatory to the promissory note as a witness, and also on comparison of the signature under Section 73 of the Evidence Act, found that the promissory note was duly executed and is a genuine one. The said finding was accepted by the first appellate court on a re-appraisal of the pleadings and evidence involved in the case. So, nothing left out with respect to the execution of the promissory note exhibited as A1 as there is concurrent finding by both the trial court and the first appellate court.
C.R.P.No.395 of 2015
:: 2 ::
No sufficient reasons brought to the notice of this Court to exercise the revisional jurisdiction vested with. As such the revision fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
P. Somarajan Judge
ahz/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a decree based on signature comparison under Section 73 of the Evidence Act without expert opinion warrants revision.
Whether a comparison made under Section 73 of the Evidence Act constitutes conclusive evidence for due execution.
Is there sufficient ground to exercise revisional jurisdiction in a civil revision petition against a first appellate decree.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Murali Edmundharan S/O. Gopan
Sivaprasad S/O. Gopan
P. Somarajan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
