This revision petition challenged the dismissal of an application seeking a handwriting comparison of documents. The High Court found no aberration or infirmity in the trial court's refusal to order comparison.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed; No 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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.04.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
C.R.P.(PD) No.3340 of 2010
M/s.Shadiram and sons by its Manager, Deshraj Sharma, S/o.Dharamchand Sharma, having office at No.19, South Raja Street, 1st Floor Tuticorin – 628 007. ... Petitioner
vs.
The Salem Roller Flour Mills, rep. by its partner, S.Deepak Kumar, having office at 67/2, Calicut Main Road, Nethimedu, Salem – 636 002.
... Respondent
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India against the Order dated 10.6.2010 in I.A.No.137 of 2010 in O.S.No.213 of 2008 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Salem.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.R.Nixon For respondent : Mr.A.Mudimannan
O R D E R
This Civil Revision Petition arises against the fair and decretal order dated 10.06.2010 passed in I.A.No.50 of 2010 in O.S.No.213 of 2008
2
on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Salem.
by comparing the signature in Ex.A.12 Bill with the signature found in Ex.B.4 through handwriting expert, according to the defendant/revision petitioner. Therefore, the present I.A.No.137 of 2010 in O.S.213 of 2008 was filed
3
before the trial Court by the first defendant/revision petitioner praying to send the signatures found in Ex.A.12 and Ex.B.4 to a Handwriting Expert for comparison and to submit a report on the similarity of signatures. Opposing the Interlocutory Application, the respondent/plaintiff filed a counter affidavit.
by comparing the signature in Ex.A.12 with the signature found in Ex.B.4 through a handwriting expert. Unless the signatures in Ex.A.12 and Ex.B.4 are sent to a handwriting expert for comparison, irreparable injury would be
4
caused to the defendant/revision petitioner and therefore, he seeks for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Trial Court and allow the Civil Revision Petition.
5
signature found in Ex.B.4 through an handwriting expert. Unless the signatures in Ex.A.12 and Ex.B.4 are sent to a handwriting expert for comparison, irreparable injury would be caused to the revision petitioner/first defendant's firm. On the other hand, it is the contention of the respondent/plaintiff that the revision petitioner/first defendant's firm has forged the document with an ulterior motive colluding with the said R.Vasu and created Ex.B.4 document and they have never given any authorisation to the said Vasu and that he was only a worker. In such circumstances, the Trial Court found that the burden is cast upon the petitioner to prove that the said R.Vasu has been authorised to sign Ex.B.4 on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff's firm and therefore, no purpose would be served by sending Ex.B.4 and Ex.A.12 to a handwriting expert. In the considered opinion of this Court, there is no aberration of justice or infirmity in the order passed by the Trial Court warranting interference at the hands of this Court.
20.04.2016
Index : yes / no Internet :yes / no
asvm
6
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J .
(asvm)
To
The Additional District Judge,
Fast Track Court No.I, Salem.
C.R.P.(PD) Nos.3340 of 2010
20.04.2016
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the interlocutory application for handwriting comparison without infirmity.
Whether interference is warranted in a decision on burden of proof regarding document execution.
M/s. Shadiram and sons
Salem Roller Flour Mills
D. Krishnakumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
