Dismissed

V.X.Dominic Savio v. M.Rajasekaran

Madras HC12 Dec 2022CRP/1130/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the civil revision petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to quash a fair order denying further expert opinion on thumb impressions. The court held the prayer was filed to protract proceedings and found no perversity in the trial court's decision.

What did the court decide?

The second Interlocutory Application need not be entertained; the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

V.X.Dominic Savio Vs M.Rajasekaran — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

C.R.P.No.1130 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 12.12.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

C.R.P.No.1130 of 2022 and

¶7

C.M.P.No.5854 of 2022

¶8

V.X.Dominic Savio ... Petitioner

¶9

Vs. M.Rajasekaran ... Respondent

¶10

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the Fair and Decreetal order dated 22.10.2021 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.3575 of 2015 on the file of the learned VII Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Jagadeesan For Respondent : Mr.V.Manisekaran

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 22.10.2021 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in O.S.No.3575 of 2015 on the file of the learned VII Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai.

¶14

Page 1 of 5

¶15

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

¶16

C.R.P.No.1130 of 2022

¶17

The revision petitioner is the defendant in the suit. The respondent

¶18

instituted a suit for recovery of money based on the promissory note. The revision petitioner/ defendant denied the signature and thumb impression in the promissory note and filed a petition for getting experts opinion through handwriting expert. The signature of the revision petitioner was sent for the opinion of the expert and the report reveals that the signature tallied with the signature of the revision petitioner/ defendant.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the thumb impression has not been verified and in this regard, the laboratory at Hyderabad had stated that there is no facility to verify the thumb impression and thus, the petitioner filed another Interlocutory Application for verification of thumb impression in the State of Tamil Nadu.

¶20

The learned counsel for the respondent raised an objection by stating that the first Interlocutory Application was filed for verification of signature and thumb impression and they have tallied and thus, no further verification is required. That apart, the second Interlocutory Application for

¶21

Page 2 of 5

¶22

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

¶23

C.R.P.No.1130 of 2022

¶24

further verification is not maintainable, since the signature of the revision petitioner has already been verified and tallied with the signature.

¶25

The trial Court made a finding that for comparison of signature and

¶26

thumb impression found in the promissory note, the documents were sent to the laboratory at Hyderabad, Telangana. The report regarding the signature of the revision petitioner was received and it was tallied with the signature and therefore, the second Interlocutory Application for the same relief is not maintainable. The Trial Court found that the revision petitioner is a literate person and his signature in the promissory note was tallied with the expert report and thus, there is no need to send the promissory note for further verification.

¶27

That apart, the thumb impression was obtained in the promissory note, only as an additional caution and therefore, the Interlocutory Application for further verification and expert opinion become unnecessary.

¶28

This Court is of the considered opinion that the second Interlocutory Application for the same relief need not be entertained. The

¶29

Page 3 of 5

¶30

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

¶31

C.R.P.No.1130 of 2022

¶32

Interlocutory Application filed with an idea to prolong and protract the suit, at no circumstances be encouraged. In the present case, the signature of the revision petitioner has already been tallied through the expert opinion and therefore, no further verification or report is required as rightly found by the Trial Court. The parties are bound to co-operate for the final disposal of the suit and therefore, this Court do not find any infirmity or perversity in the findings made by the Trial Court in the Interlocutory Application.

¶33

With these observations, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶34

12.12.2022

¶35

Skr/Jeni Index : Yes Speaking order To

¶36

The Judge, VII Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai.

¶37

Page 4 of 5

¶38

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

¶39

C.R.P.No.1130 of 2022

¶40

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

¶41

Skr

¶42

C.R.P.No.1130 of 2022

¶43

12.12.2022

¶44

Page 5 of 5

¶45

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

V.X.Dominic Savio v. M.Rajasekaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.X.Dominic Savio v. M.Rajasekaran

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

Rajalakshmi Vs Jayakumar

R.Varalakshmi @ Maria Angelin Vs I. Leslee Isaac

V.Abirami Vs Sm.Senthilnathan @ Rakappan

S. Bhuwaneswari Vs T.J. Akaash Subramani

Chandrasekar Vs Nallammal

G.Sridhar Vs Sabitha