Allowed

S.P.Raja v. Neelavathy

Madras HC16 Apr 2021CRP/3573/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this revision, the High Court set aside the Subordinate Judge's order refusing the petitioner's prayer to reject a xerox copy of a pronote. The court found the order perverse as a xerox copy cannot be marked as evidence to prove the original suit pronote's signature, allowing the C.R.P.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 10.08.2018 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Ponneri in I.A.No.202 of 2018 in O.S.No.90 of 2013 is set aside. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

S.P.Raja Vs Neelavathy — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

C.R.P.(PD).No.3573 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 16.04.2021

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

C.R.P.(PD).No.3573 of 2018
and C.M.P.No.20015 of 2018
P.Raja ... Petitioner
Vs
Neelavathy ... Respondent
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 10.08.2018 passed by
the learned Subordinate Judge, Ponneri in I.A.No.202 of 2018 in O.S.No.90
of 2013.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Dhilipchander
For Respondent : Mr.R.Munuswamy
**********

¶7

1/4

¶8

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

¶9

C.R.P.(PD).No.3573 of 2018

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

This Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the fair and decreetal

¶12

order dated 10.08.2018 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Ponneri in I.A.No.202 of 2018 in O.S.No.90 of 2013.

¶13

The petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in

¶14

the suit. The respondent filed a suit for recovery of money in the strength of the pronote dated 03.02.2010. The specific stand of the petitioner is that he

¶15

was not aware of the debt as alleged in the plaint and he never executed suit promissory note to the respondent herein. Further he has stated that the plaint pronote might have been forged one. Somehow, maneuvered the

¶16

signature in capital letters and filled up the pronote with ulterior motive to

¶17

grab the money from the petitioner herein.

¶18

The written statement was filed in the year 2014. Even though the

¶19

petitioner had taken a specific stand that the alleged suit pronote was forged

¶20

one, the respondent did not take any step for obtaining an expert opinion 2/4

¶21

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

¶22

C.R.P.(PD).No.3573 of 2018

¶23

from a handwriting expert. While the petitioner was in the witness box during the cross examination of D.W.1, the respondent showed a photocopy

¶24

of the pronote dated 17.11.2006 to the petitioner and questioned him whether it was executed by him in favour of one Balakrishnan. Thereafter, he wanted to mark the said document as his evidence.

¶25

At that juncture, the petitioner filed a petition to reject the petition and objected to the marking of the xerox copy of the pronote. Admittedly,

¶26

the document which was shown to the petitioner was a xerox copy of the pronote. Only for the purpose of proving the signature found in the suit pronote dated 03.02.2010, a xerox copy of the pronote dated 17.11.2006 was shown to the petitioner herein.

¶27

As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, if it

¶28

is a original pronote and if the signature is admitted by the petitioner, it can

¶29

be marked. Whereas the said pronote is only a xerox copy and it cannot be marked as evidence. That apart, while the petitioner specifically denied the

¶30

signature found in the suit pronote, the respondent ought to have taken steps to prove the suit pronote by filing an appropriate petition. Therefore, the

¶31

3/4

¶32

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

¶33

C.R.P.(PD).No.3573 of 2018

¶34

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,

¶35

rna

¶36

order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Ponneri in I.A.No.202 of

¶37

2018 in O.S.No.90 of 2013 is perverse and liable to be set aside.

¶38

Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is Allowed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No order as to
costs.
16.04.2021
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
rna
To
The Subordinate Judge,
Ponneri.
C.R.P.(PD).No.3573 of 2018
and C.M.P.No.20015 of 2018

¶39

4/4

¶40

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

S.P.Raja v. Neelavathy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.P.Raja v. Neelavathy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.P. Aravinda Vs P. Karl Marx

D.Mohammed Dhaha, Vs M.D.Ameerunnissa

M.Nagaraj Vs P.Ramachandran

Selvi Vs Kalaimagal

M.Munivenkatamma Vs Nanjamma

Ponraj Vs John Elangovan