The Madras High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the trial court's rejection of的申请 to examine bank managers for signature comparison. The bench held the revision was devoid of merits and an attempt to drag proceedings, confirming the impugned order was correct.
Revision petition dismissed; connected miscellaneous petition closed; no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.R.P.(MD)No.1748 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 23.11.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
C.R.P.(MD)No.1748 of 2023 and C.M.P.(MD)No.8700 of 2023
Muthulakshmi ... Petitioner/ Petitioner/ Defendant
Vs.
Alagar ... Respondent/ Respondent/ Plaintiff
Prayer : This Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order and decree dated 27.04.2023 made in I.A.No.730 of 2022 in O.S.No.93 of 2018 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Kumbakonam and allow this Civil Revision Petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Gomathi Sankar
For Respondent : Mr.A.N.Ramanathan
C.R.P.(MD)No.1748 of 2023
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed in I.A.No.730 of 2022 in O.S.No.93 of 2018 dated 27.04.2023 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Kumbakonam, dismissing the application filed under Order 16 Rule 1 C.P.C., seeking permission to issue summons to examine three witnesses.
C.R.P.(MD)No.1748 of 2023
ICICI cheque issued, that the revision petitioner/defendant has not borrowed any amount from the respondent/plaintiff and that in order to prove the defence, the revision petitioner/defendant has filed the above application to examine the Branch Managers of Karur Vysya Bank, State Bank of India and City Union Bank.
C.R.P.(MD)No.1748 of 2023
contains the admitted signature of the revision petitioner/defendant and is required for comparison. But admittedly, the revision petitioner/defendant has not filed any application before the trial Court for sending the disputed cheque to the expert for comparing the signatures found therein with the admitted signature of the revision petitioner/defendant.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
23.11.2023
NCC :yes/No Index :yes/No Internet:yes/No csm
C.R.P.(MD)No.1748 of 2023
To
C.R.P.(MD)No.1748 of 2023
K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.
csm
Order made in C.R.P.(MD)No.1748 of 2023 and C.M.P.(MD)No.8700 of 2023
Dated : 23.11.2023
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court committed any illegality in dismissing the application to examine branch managers of other banks for signature comparison.
Whether the revision petition merging defence on Section 138 N.I. Act was an attempt to delay proceedings.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Muthulakshmi
Alagar
K.Murali Shankar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
