Allowed

S.Sahar Banu v. K.K.Ramamurthy

Madras HC1 Apr 2021CRP/807/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil Revision Petition challenging an order dismissing a request for a handwriting expert opinion in a recovery suit involving a Promissory Note. The High Court allowed the revision, setting aside the lower court order, directing the trial court to get a report on the non-signature portions of the note and dispose of the suit within six months.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 11.01.2017 set aside. Trial court directed to obtain handwriting opinion and dispose of suit within six months.

S.Sahar Banu Vs K.K.Ramamurthy — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

C.R.P.(P.D).No.807 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 01.04.2021

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

C.R.P.(PD) No.807 of 2017
and CMP. No.3974 of 2017
S.Sahar Banu ... Petitioner
Vs.
K.K.Ramamurthy ... Respondent
Prayer :- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution
of India to set aside the order dated 11.01.2017 passed in I.A.No.329 of
2015 in O.S.No.297 of 2013 on the file of II Additional District Judge,
Salem.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.Udaya Kumar for M/s.Karan and Uday For Respondent : Mr.D.Shivakumaran ORDER

¶8

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated

¶9

11.01.2017 passed in I.A.No.329 of 2015 in O.S.No.297 of 2013 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Salem, thereby dismissing the petition

¶10

seeking hand writing expert opinion in the Promissory Note.

¶11

The petitioner is the second defendant in the suit filed by the

¶12

1/6

¶13

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

¶14

C.R.P.(P.D).No.807 of 2017

¶15

respondent for recovery of money in the Promissory Note dated 24.09.2012. The petitioner filed a written statement specifically stating that the respondent obtained signature on the revenue stamp in a blank Promissory Note during the year 2000 mentioning that the entrustment of the instrument would facilitate and work as a security regarding the silver business. Therefore, the petitioner had affixed her signature with due respect only for the security purpose. The petitioner never borrowed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as alleged in the plaint. The petitioner is a docile Islamic Farda Woman and was never in the habit of going to others house on any account. Further stating that under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, this Court itself is at liberty to find out the illegal nature of the Promissory Note and she is ready to send the Promissory Note to competent expert viz., Hand Writing Expert and Thumb Impression Expert for opinion. Immediately, the petitioner filed a petition to send for the alleged

¶16

Promissory Note for hand writing expert for the following purpose :

¶17

“ ,j;Jld; ,izf;fg;gl;Ls;s gpukhzg; gj;jphpf;ifapy; fz;Ls;s fhuz';fSf;fhf fdk; nfhh;l;lhh; mth;fs; (1) jhth g[nuhnehl;il epg[zh; ghpnrhjidf;F mDg;gp

¶18

2/6

¶19

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

¶20

C.R.P.(P.D).No.807 of 2017

¶21

g[nuhnehl;oy; xl;lg;gl;Ls;s tUtha; tpy;iy ve;j tUlj;ij rhh;e;jJ ? me;j tUlj;jpw;F chpa tUtha; tpy;iyapd; fhuz fhhpa';fis mwpe;J bfhs;st[k;. (2) jhth g[nuhnehl;oy; 1tJ fl;lj;jpy; xU ifnuif

¶22

itf;fg;gl;Ls;sjh my;yJ ,uz;L ifnuif itf;fg;gl;Ls;s;jh vd;W bjhpe;J bfhs;tjw;Fk; (3) jhth g[nuhnehl;oy; 1tJ fl;lj;jpy; itf;fg;gl;Ls;s ifnuif xnu egUilajh ? (4) jhth g[nuhnehl;oy; 2tJ fl;lj;jpy; itf;fg;gl;Ls;s ifnuif xnu egUilajh ? vd;W bjhpe;J bfhs;tjw;Fk;. (5) jhth g[nuhnehl;oy; vGjg;gl;l ngdh xnu ngdhthy; vGjg;gl;ljh ? my;yJ btt;ntW ngdhtpdhy; vGjg;gl;ljh ? mjpy; cs;s ifbaGj;Jf;fspd; brhe;jf;fhuh;fs; vj;jid ngh; ? vd;W bjhpe;J bfhs;tjw;Fk; nkw;go jhth g[nuhnehl;il ty;Ydh;fspd; ghpnrhjidf;F mDg;g cj;jutpLkhW kDjhuh; gpuhh;j;jpf;fpwhh; ”.

¶23

The Court below dismissed the petition on the ground that

¶24

once the signature in the Promissory Note is admitted, sending the signature

¶25

in the Promissory Note for ascertaining the age of the ink found thereon

¶26

3/6

¶27

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

¶28

C.R.P.(P.D).No.807 of 2017

¶29

does not arise and the petition is not maintainable.

¶30

The case of the petitioner is that except the signature other

¶31

blank promissory note had been filled up by the respondent and the petitioner never borrowed any loan on execution of the Promissory Note. The petitioner never asked for comparison of signature found in the alleged

¶32

Promissory Note. In respect of the other writing in the blanks of the Promissory Note have to be verified by the Hand Writing Expert. Therefore, the order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.329 of 2015 in O.S.No.297 of 2013, dated 11.01.2017 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Salem is set aside. This Civil Revision Petition is allowed. On receipt of the Hand Writing Expert's opinion, the Court below is directed to dispose of the suit, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶33

01.04.2021

¶34

lpp Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking Order: Yes/No

¶35

4/6

¶36

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

¶37

C.R.P.(P.D).No.807 of 2017

¶38

To The II Additional District Judge, Salem.

¶39

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.J,

¶40

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

¶41

5/6

¶42

C.R.P.(P.D).No.807 of 2017

¶43

lpp

¶44

C.R.P.(PD) No.807 of 2017
and CMP. No.3974 of 2017
01.04.2021

¶45

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

¶46

6/6

S.Sahar Banu v. K.K.Ramamurthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Sahar Banu v. K.K.Ramamurthy

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

Tamilselvan Vs Thulasi

S.Elavazhagan Vs Dr.a.Dhanaraj

P.Ramanathan Vs Parimalavardhini

Kannammal(Died) Vs Venkataraman

Chandra Vs Gajendiran

Mr.K.v.Vijayaraghavan Vs Cholamandala Investments &