The High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging the Trial Court's order allowing an application for expert signature comparison. The Court held that denying such an opportunity was unjustified.
Civil Revision Petition and connected miscellaneous petition dismissed and closed.
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.
C.R.P(PD)No. 3791 of 2018 and C.M.P.No. 21114 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15.12.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
C.R.P(PD)No. 3791 of 2018
and
C.M.P.No. 21114 of 2018
1.Mithiles Sharma
2.Janaki
3.Kowsal Kumar ...Petitioners
Vs.
Subbarayan ...Respondent
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order and decreetal order dated 06.10.2018 passed in I.A.No. 134 of 2018 in O.S.No. 86 of 2011 on the file of the Sub-Court, Madurantagam.
For Petitioners : Mr.K.Kovi Ganesan For Respondent : Mr.P.Valliappan
1/6
C.R.P(PD)No. 3791 of 2018 and C.M.P.No. 21114 of 2018
O R D E R
The defendants in O.S.No. 86 of 2011 have come up with this
revision challenging the order allowing an application seeking comparison
of the signatures found in the suit promissory notes with the admitted
signatures by the expert.
Government expert. The Trial Court had allowed the said application.
petitioners and Mr.P.Valliappan, learned counsel for the respondent.
2/6
C.R.P(PD)No. 3791 of 2018 and C.M.P.No. 21114 of 2018
the Trial court can be faulted for allowing the application seeking comparison of the signatures by an expert which is only another mode of proof of documents. I do nothink the Courts will be justified in denying
such opportunity to the plaintiff or defendant in an appropriate case.
of the promissory notes by Dharmendra Kumar, who is no more. Therefore,
3/6
C.R.P(PD)No. 3791 of 2018 and C.M.P.No. 21114 of 2018
it is all the more necessary that the expert opinion is taken. For the foregoing reasons, this civil revision petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No
costs.
15.12.2020
kkn
Internet:Yes
Index:No
Speaking
To:
The Sub-Court,
Madurantagam.
4/6
C.R.P(PD)No. 3791 of 2018 and C.M.P.No. 21114 of 2018
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
KKN
C.R.P(PD)No. 3791 of 2018
and
C.M.P.No. 21114 of 2018
5/6
C.R.P(PD)No. 3791 of 2018 and C.M.P.No. 21114 of 2018
15.12.2020
6/6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Trial Court erred in allowing the plaintiff's application for comparison of signatures by an expert.
Whether previous observations regarding delay preclude the plaintiff from seeking signature comparison in the present instance.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mithiles Sharma
Janaki
Kowsal Kumar
Subbarayan
R. Subramanian
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
