Allowed

M/s.Nishok Impex, v. Sri Eshan Enterprises

Madras HC20 Feb 2023CRP(MD)/377/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition was allowed by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The trial court permitted expert opinion to compare signatures on pro-notes but remained silent on comparing the disputed handwriting in a specific endorsement against accepted handwriting. The High Court directed that the expert opinion must include this comparison.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The trial court is directed to send the pro-notes for expert opinion including the comparison of the disputed handwriting in the second endorsement with the adm

M/s.Nishok Impex, Vs Sri Eshan Enterprises — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

CRP(MD).No.377 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 20.02.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶6

CRP(MD).No.377 of 2023 and C.M.P(MD).No.1831 of 2023

¶7

1.M/s.Nishok Impex, a Partnership Firm rep., by its Managing Partner, K.Ramesh

¶8

2.K.Ramesh .. Petitioners/Petitioners/Defendants 1 and 2

¶9

Vs.

¶10

Shri Eshan Enterprises, rep., by its Managing Partners, KAS.Esvaramurthi and E.Shembakavalli ... Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff

¶11

PRAYER : Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.No.2 of 2021 in O.S.No.149 of 2019 dated 09.11.2021 on the file of the Principal District Court, Karur in so far not directing the comparison of the disputed hand writing in the endorsement dated 19.07.2019.

¶12

. For Petitioners : Mr.H.Arumugam For Respondent : Mr.Raghuvaran Gopalan

¶13

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

¶14

1/6

¶15

CRP(MD).No.377 of 2023

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The present revision petition has been filed by the defendants 1

¶18

and 2 in a suit for recovery of money based upon the pro-notes.

¶19

According to the plaintiff, the second defendant has

¶20

executed three pro-notes on 31.08.2013 and another pro-note on 25.09.2013. The plaintiff had further contended that in all the four pronotes there is an endorsement on 01.08.2016 making some payments. Thereafter, there was an second endorsement on 19.07.2019. The

¶21

present suit has been filed on 18.11.2019 relying upon the second endorsement in all the four pro-notes for the purpose of limitation.

¶22

The defendants have taken a defence that the second endorsement in all the four pro-notes has been forged to bring the suit within the period of limit ation. The handwriting, the signature and the seal of the first defendant have been forged by the plaintiff. However, the defendants have admitted the first endorsement made in all these four pro-notes on 01.08.2016.

¶23

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

¶24

2/6

¶25

CRP(MD).No.377 of 2023

¶26

Based upon the aforesaid pleadings in the written statement,

¶27

the defendants had filed I.A.No.2 of 2021 to send the pro-notes for expert opinion to find out the veracity of the handwriting, signature and seal of the first defendant herein. While allowing the said application, the trial Court has rejected the request of the defendants with regard to the comparison of seals. The said portion of the order is not under challenge. The trial Court has accepted the request of the defendants for comparing the handwriting and referred the matter for expert opinion. The said portion of the order has not been challenged by the plaintiff.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the present revision petitioner has been filed challenging the order of the trial Court with regard to not allowing the application with regard to comparison of the handwriting in the second endorsement on the ground that it has been mentioned that it is a Rf];fypjk;. The defendants 1 and 2 have prayed that the handwriting in the first endorsement may be compared with the handwriting in the second endorsement so as to arrive at truth.

¶29

I have perused the plaint written statement and the pleadings in the interlocutory application.

¶30

3/6

¶31

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

¶32

CRP(MD).No.377 of 2023

¶33

The defendants 1 and 2 have specifically admitted the first endorsement in all the four pro-notes on 01.08.2016. However, the defendants have specifically disputed about the second endorsement on 19.07.2019. The Court has proceeded to permit the defendants to send the pro-notes for expert opinion to compare the signature of the second defendant found in the second endorsement to be compared along with the signature of the second defendant in the first endorsement and the pro-notes. However, the Court was silent about the comparison of the handwriting found in the second endorsement. This has prompted the defendants 1 and 2 to file the present revision petition.

¶34

The defendants 1 and 2 have filed a memo before the trial Court to bring it to the notice of the Court that despite being a prayer, the Court has not considered the same. The said memo was closed by the trial Court on 12.12.2022 on the ground that it has no power to revise its own order.

¶35

When the defendants 1 and 2 have specifically disputed the

¶36

handwriting found in the second endorsement, they are always entitled to

¶37

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

¶38

4/6

¶39

CRP(MD).No.377 of 2023

¶40

get their handwriting also compared with the admitted handwriting in the first endorsement on 01.08.2016. When the four pro-notes are sent to expert opinion to compare the signature of the second defendant, the expert shall also compare the handwriting of the second defendant found in the second endorsement with the first endorsement.

¶41

With the aforesaid observation, the Civil Revision Petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶42

20.02.2023

¶43

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Rmk

¶44

To The Principal District Judge, Karur.

¶45

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

¶46

5/6

¶47

CRP(MD).No.377 of 2023

¶48

R.VIJAYAKUMAR ,J.,

¶49

Rmk

¶50

Order made in CRP(MD).No.377 of 2023

¶51

Dated: 20.02.2023

¶52

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/6

M/s.Nishok Impex, v. Sri Eshan Enterprises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Nishok Impex, v. Sri Eshan Enterprises

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

Ilangovan Vs Basheer Ahamed (Died), 1) Faritha Begum

Murugan Vs Devadhas

Murugan Vs Rajakumari

Rajeswari Vs Murugappan

Manivannan, Vs T.R.Metha

Eswari Vs Rasuvadan