Disposed

K.Dhanasekaran, v. W. Sudir

Madras HC4 Jan 2023CRP(MD)/1973/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged order dismissing application for signature comparison due to failure to produce contemporaneous document. Court allowed prayer subject to undertaking to produce original memorandum of deposit of title deed by specified date.

What did the court decide?

Direction to produce original memorandum of deposit of title deed on 24.01.2023 for signature comparison; trial to proceed if not produced.

K.Dhanasekaran, Vs W. Sudir — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

CRP(MD)No.1973 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated: 04.01.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

CRP(MD)No.1973 of 2022 and CMP(MD)No.9063 of 2022

¶7

K.Dhanasekaran ... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

W.Sudir ... Respondent

¶10

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order passed in IA.No.2 of 2021 in OS.No.87 of 2021 dated 14.07.2022 on the file of the II Additional District Court, Thoothukudi, and dismiss the same by allowing this civil revision petition.

¶11

For petitioner : Mr.Jegadeeswaran For Respondent : Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed in IA.No.2 of 2021 in OS.No.87 of 2021 dated 14.07.2022 by the II Additional District Court, Thoothukudi.

¶14

1/5

¶15

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

¶16

CRP(MD)No.1973 of 2022

¶17

2.The petitioner is the defendant in OS.No.87 of 2021.

¶18

The respondent / plaintiff has filed the said suit for recovery of money based on a promissory note. The petitioner / defendant disputed the signature found in the promissory note and therefore filed an application to send the said document for comparing the signature with Ex.B1, which was produced by the respondent/plaintiff. The trial Court has not accepted the case of the petitioner that Ex.B1 is not a contemporaneous document, however, provided an opportunity to the petitioner to produce any other contemporaneous document for comparing the signature. But the petitioner has failed to produce the document and therefore the said application was dismissed. Aggrieved over the same, this civil revision petition is filed.

¶19

3.Now the petitioner has come forward with the memorandum of deposit of title deed, dated 29.05.2020, which is four months prior to the date of the promissory note and therefore, prayed for one more opportunity to him for comparing the signatures found in the promissory note and the title deed dated 29.05.2020.

¶20

2/5

¶21

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

¶22

CRP(MD)No.1973 of 2022

¶23

4.The learned Counsel for the respondent strongly opposes this petition that though this petitioner is referring about the memorandum of deposit of title deed, the original of the same is not placed before this Court.

¶24

5.In reply, the learned Counsel for the petitioner

¶25

undertakes that the petitioner will produce the original memorandum of deposit of title deed before the trial Court on 24.01.2023.

¶26

6.Considering the rival submissions made, this civil

¶27

revision petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to produce the original memorandum of deposit of title deed dated 29.05.2020 before the trial Court on

¶28

24.01.2023 as undertaken by him and on such a production the trial Court shall pass orders for comparing the signature by the experts. If the petitioner does not produce the document as undertaken by him, the trial Court shall proceed with the trial. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition stands dismissed.

04.01.2023

dsk

3/5

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

¶33

CRP(MD)No.1973 of 2022

¶34

¶35

II Additional District Judge,

¶36

Thoothukudi,

¶37

4/5

¶38

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

¶39

CRP(MD)No.1973 of 2022

¶40

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶41

dsk

¶42

CRP(MD)No.1973 of 2022

¶43

04.01.2023

¶44

5/5

¶45

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

K.Dhanasekaran, v. W. Sudir

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Dhanasekaran, v. W. Sudir

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

P.Saravanan Vs a.Vennila

T.. Neela, Vs Vetri Velayutha Perumal

Udahayakumar Vs Jayapraba

C. Stalin Raja, Vs Sri Krishna Bankers

P.Ponram, Vs M.Santhanam

G.Vedhanayagi Vs S. Karuppasamy