Allowed

D.Suresh, v. Ramasamy

Madras HC15 Feb 2023CRP(MD)/2643/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court held that the trial court cannot unilaterally reject a request to compare a thumbnail impression by deeming it smudged. The revision was allowed, directing the trial court to obtain a specimen from the defendant for expert comparison and setting aside the lower court's dismissal.

What did the court decide?

Order in I.A.No.2 of 2022 set aside; trial court directed to obtain specimen thumb impression from defendant via Advocate Commissioner for expert comparison.

D.Suresh, Vs Ramasamy — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

C.R.P.(PD)(MD).No.2643 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 15.02.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶6

C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.2643 of 2022 and C.M.P(MD) No.12960 of 2022

¶7

D.Suresh

¶8

... Petitioner / Petitioner/ Petitioner Plaintiff

¶9

-vs-

¶10

Ramasamy

¶11

.... Respondent/Respondent/ Respondent/ Defendant

¶12

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decretal order, dated 03.09.2022 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Court, Virudhunagar District, Srivilliputhur in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in O.S.No.89 of 2018.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sudalaiyandi For Respondent : No appearance

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

The present civil revision petition has been field challenging an order

¶16

refusing to send the thumb impression in the suit pronote for comparison.

¶17

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

¶18

1/5

¶19

C.R.P.(PD)(MD).No.2643 of 2022

¶20

2. The plaintiff in a suit for recovery of money, based on the pronote is

¶21

the revision petitioner herein. The defendant in the said suit had disputed the signature as well as the thumb impression in the suit pronote. The plaintiff had filed I.A.No.1 of 2020 to send the suit pronote for expert opinion to compare signature and the thumb impression found in the suit pronote and the admitted signature and thumb impression.

¶22

3. However, while passing order in I.A.No.1 of 2020, the Principal

¶23

District and Sessions Court, Virudhunagar District, Srivilliputhur, had directed only for comparison of signature and not for comparison of thumb impression, even though it was prayed for.

¶24

4. Aggrieved over the said order, the petitioner had filed I.A.No.2 of 2022 requesting the Court to pass an order to compare the thumb impression in the suit pronote along with the thumb impression to be obtained in the Court. However, the learned Judge has proceeded to dismiss the said application on the ground that thumb impression found in the said suit pronote is smudged and the said thumb impression is not clear, so as to compare the same.

¶25

2/5

¶26

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

¶27

C.R.P.(PD)(MD).No.2643 of 2022

¶28

5. Challenging the said order, the present revision petition has been filed. Even though notice has been served on the respondent and name is also

¶29

printed in the cause list, none appeared in person or through counsel.

¶30

6. The fact that whether the thumb impression is smudged or its clear has to be decided only by the expert. The trial Court cannot decide on its own and reject an application on the said ground. The trial Court is directed to get a specimen thumb impression from the defendant and sent for comparison to the expert, through an Advocate Commissioner. The order passed in I.A.No.2 of 2022 is set aside and the same stands allowed.

¶31

7. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition stands allowed. There shall

¶32

be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is

¶33

closed.

¶34

15.02.2023

¶35

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No ebsi

¶36

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

¶37

3/5

¶38

C.R.P.(PD)(MD).No.2643 of 2022

¶39

¶40

The Principal District and Sessions Court, Virudhunagar District, Srivilliputhur.

¶41

4/5

¶42

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

¶43

C.R.P.(PD)(MD).No.2643 of 2022

¶44

R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.

¶45

ebsi

¶46

C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.2643 of 2022

¶47

15.02.2023

¶48

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

¶49

5/5

D.Suresh, v. Ramasamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Suresh, v. Ramasamy

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

Jarifa Gracelin, Vs Dinesh Xavier

Kamalam Nadathi,(Died) Vs Arulappan Nadar (Died)

Ramalakshmi, Vs Subbaiah Nadar

Kothandapani, Vs Thangavel (Died), 1. Sugumar

G. Rajini alias Rajiniammal, Vs G. Selvam

Marimuthu Vs Ramachandran (died)