Dismissed

D.Shanmugam v. P.Anbalagan

Madras HC1 Dec 2021CRP/2624/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision challenged a trial court order dismissing an application to direct a witness to write a document for signature comparison. The High Court held that the relief was unjustified as the defendant admitted the signature, and statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act barred the request.

What did the court decide?

Revised dismissed; connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition closed.

D.Shanmugam Vs P.Anbalagan — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

CRP (PD) No.2624 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 01.12.2021

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

¶6

CRP (PD) No.2624 of 2021 and CMP No.19469 of 2021

D.Shanmugam

... Petitioner

P.Anbalagan

... Respondent

Prayer: The Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order, dated 06.03.2021

¶13

in I.A. No.01 of 2020 in O.S. No.36 of 2014 on the file of the Subordinate

¶14

Judge, Bhavani.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Thiyagarajan

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The challenge in this Revision is to an order of the Trial Court

¶18

dismissing the application filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to PW3

¶19

to write a document and send it for comparison with the suit promissory

¶20

1/5

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

CRP (PD) No.2624 of 2021

¶23

note which has been marked as Ex.A1.

¶24

In a suit filed for recovery of money on the basis of the promissory note, the petitioner who is defendant has taken a defence that his signature was obtained by force in a blank promissory note and the same has been filled up later. Therefore, the petitioner admits his signature in the promissory note. Under Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a holder of the promissory note or holder in due course is entitled to fill it up. The presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would apply to such instrument also. The petitioner seeks extraordinary relief to compare the writing in the promissory note by requiring PW3 to execute or write a document. This, in my opinion, cannot be allowed. The Trial Court was justified in dismissing the application. Once the defendant/ executant admits the signature, whether the promissory note is filled up by A or B or C, does not a matter. In as much as Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act vests the power in the holder or holder in the due course to fill up the instrument and sue upon it. I do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the Trial Court. Hence, the Revision fails and it is

¶25

2/5

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

CRP (PD) No.2624 of 2021

¶28

accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶29

01.12.2021

¶30

ab/vum Index: Yes/No Speaking order / Non speaking order

¶31

3/5

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

CRP (PD) No.2624 of 2021

¶34

To:

¶35

The Subordinate Judge, Bhavani.

¶36

The Section Officer, VR Section, Madras High Court, Chennai.

¶37

4/5

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

CRP (PD) No.2624 of 2021

¶40

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

¶41

ab/vum

¶42

CRP (PD) No.2624 of 2021 and CMP No.19469 of 2021

¶43

01.12.2021

¶44

5/5

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

D.Shanmugam v. P.Anbalagan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Shanmugam v. P.Anbalagan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Divyabharathi Vs Arun Narayanan

M.P.Poornima Vs K.Muilmurugan

Thiripura Sundari Vs M.Chandrasekaran

S.Velu Vs K.Rajavel

Angamuthu Vs Dhandapani

N.P.K.R.Ramasamy Co-Operative Sugar Mills Ltd, Vs Binny Engineering Ltd.