Perumal v. Madammal
Case brief
What is this about?
A High Court revision petition was dismissed upholding the trial Court's order denying comparison of a 2013 promissory note signature with 2016/2019 documents due to the late application and lack of contemporary comparison materials.
What did the court decide?
The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.01.2020
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN
C.R.P.NO.4049 OF 2019 AND C.M.P.NO.26578 OF 2019
Perumal ...Petitioner/Petitioner/ Plaintiff
Vs.
Madammal ...Respondent/Respondent/ Defendant
PRAYER :
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set-aside the fair and decreetal ordere of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Hosur dated 16.09.2019 in I.A.No.2 of 2019 in O.S.No.180 of 2016 and allow the C.R.P.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Nicholas
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order of dismissing the petitioner's application seeking to send the suit pronote along with the signature found in the vakalath and the written statement for comparison of signature by an expert.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial Court committed illegality or irregularity in dismissing the application to compare signature in the promissory note with that in the vakalath and written statement filed in 2019, gi
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Perumal
- respondent
Madammal
Coram
V. Bharathidasan
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court