Allowed

T.Kumar v. v.Kannammal(Died)

Madras HC15 Nov 2022CRP/1734/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed Civil Revision Petitions setting aside trial court order dismissing applications for expert opinion. Court directed trial court to send pronote and salary register for signature comparison to compare defendant's signature, as he failed earlier opportunity due to the belatedness of the application in earlier proceedings. No costs awarded. Connected CMP closed.

What did the court decide?

Findings of trial judge set aside; trial court directed to send pronote and salary register for expert opinion on signature comparison and dispose of case expeditiously; no costs.

T.Kumar Vs v.Kannammal(Died) — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

C.R.P. Nos.1734 & 1735 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 15.11.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶6

C.R.P.Nos.1734 & 1735 of 2018

¶7

and C.M.P. No. 9511 of 2018

¶8

T.Kumar, S/o. Thangavel

¶9

... Petitioner in both C.R.P.s

¶10

Versus

¶11

V.Kannammal (died)

¶12

Bakiyalakshmi W/o Natarajan

¶13

3 Balamani Murugesan

¶14

W/o Murugesan

¶15

4 M.Dhanalakshmi W/o Mahalingam

¶16

5 K.Umarani D/o V.Kalliappagounder

¶17

(Respondents 2 to 5 are brought on record as LRs of the Deceased R-1 viz., V.Kannammal Vide Court order dated 05.07.2022 made in C.M.P. No. 11573 of 2021 in C.R.P.No.1735 of 2018)

¶18

1/6

¶19

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

¶20

C.R.P. Nos.1734 & 1735 of 2018

¶21

K.Chellamuthu Manickam (died)

¶22

(R6 -died Memo is recorded)

¶23

... Respondents in both C.R.P.s

¶24

PRAYER in C.R.P.No. 1734 of 2018 : Civil Revision Petition filed under Art. 227 of Constitution of India, praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 26.03.2018 made in I.A.No.1 of 2018 in O.S.No.112 of 2009 on the file of Sub-Court, Pollachi.

¶25

PRAYER in C.R.P.No. 1735 of 2018 : Civil Revision Petition filed

¶26

under Art. 227 of Constitution of India, praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 26.03.2018 made in I.A.No.2 of 2018 in O.S.No.112 of 2009 on the file of Sub-Court, Pollachi. .

¶27

For Petitioners in both C.R.P.s : Mr.S.Kausik for Mr.V.Anandhamurthy For Respondents in both C.R.P.s : Ms. G.Thenmozhi for R2 to R5 R1 & R6 – died

¶28

2/6

¶29

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

¶30

C.R.P. Nos.1734 & 1735 of 2018

¶31

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶32

These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed seeking to set aside the

¶33

fair and decreetal orders passed in I.A.Nos. 1 and 2 of 2018 in O.S.No. 112 of 2009, on the file of learned Sub-Judge, Pollachi respectively.

¶34

Originally, the suit in O.S.No. 112 of 2009 was filed by the

¶35

respondent/plaintiff for recovery of money against the defendant/revision petitioner herein based on the pronote debt. The said suit was contested by the defendant stating that he has not borrowed any amount from the plaintiff nor he signed in the pronote. Thereafter, issues were framed and trial was commenced. At that time, the defendant preferred two applications in I.A.No.1 and 2 of 2018 under Sec.45 of Indian Evidence Act to send the document of pronote along with signature found in salary register of the year 2017-2018 and to direct the School Headmaster to produce those documents under Sec.75 of Civil Rules of Practice. Both the said applications were contested by the plaintiff stating that at the time of trial, to drag on the proceedings, purposely, the defendant filed the said applications. Considering submissions of both sides, the trial court dismissed the said applications holding that the defendant has not taken any steps to send the document for expert opinion even after filing of written

¶36

3/6

¶37

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

¶38

C.R.P. Nos.1734 & 1735 of 2018

¶39

statement. Challenging the said findings, the defendant preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

¶40

The learned counsel for Revision Petitioner argued that the defendant from the inception of suit itself raised submissions that he has not signed in the pronote and to prove the same, he wanted to send the pronote for expert opinion and to compare the signature found in the pronote as well as salary register of the year 2017-2018, since he is working as a Government School teacher. Inspite of giving opportunity, the trial court dismissed the said applications. Hence, he prayed to set aside the findings of the trial judge.

¶41

The learned counsel for respondent argued that the suit was filed in the year of 2009 for the relief of recovery of money, however, the defendant denied his signature in the pronote and he has not taken any steps to send

¶42

the document for expert opinion. But, the trial was begun in the year of 2017, at that time, the defendant approached the court to send the document to expert opinion, which is highly belated one and it is only to drag on the proceedings, he filed those applications.

¶43

Considering submissions of both sides and on perusal of records, it reveals that at the time of filing written statement, the defendant denied his

¶44

4/6

¶45

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

¶46

C.R.P. Nos.1734 & 1735 of 2018

¶47

signature in the pronote, however, admittedly, he is working as a Government School Teacher and now he wanted to compare the signature found in the pronote with the signature obtained in salary register of the year 2017-2018, which is a contemporary period for comparing the signature in the pronote. So, to prove his defence, an opportunity is to be given to the defendant. But, the trial court failed to consider the same. Accordingly, the findings rendered by the trial judge is liable to be set aside.

¶48

In the result, these Civil Revision Petitions are allowed and the findings of the learned trial judge in I.A. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2018 are set aside. However, the trial court is directed to send the pronote and salary register of the year 2017-2018 to compare the signature of defendant for expert opinion and after getting expert opinion, the trial court is directed to dispose the case as expeditiously as possible. No costs. Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.

¶49

15.11.2022

¶50

rpp To Sub-Judge, Pollachi.

¶51

5/6

¶52

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

¶53

C.R.P. Nos.1734 & 1735 of 2018

¶54

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

¶55

rpp

¶56

C.R.P.Nos.1734 & 1735 of 2018

¶57

15.11.2022

¶58

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

¶59

6/6

T.Kumar v. v.Kannammal(Died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Kumar v. v.Kannammal(Died)

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

V.Sambandaha Mudaliar (Died) Vs Panchatcharam

R. Saradhambal Vs Lakshmanan(Deceased)

Thiruvalluvar Middle School Vs Shantha

S.Vasan Tha Sudhanandhen Vs Erode Sengunthar Edu Trust

M.Anthony Vs K.G.Gopalakrishnan

Kaliya Padayachi @ Kaliyamurthy (deceased) Vs Govindan