Civil Revision Petition challenging a trial court order dismissng an application for appointment of a handwriting commissioner in a money recovery suit. The High Court found the trial order free of infirmity.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed; suit disposed of at earliest point of time.
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.No.633 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.08.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI
C.R.P.No.633 of 2023 and C.M.P.No.4997 of 2023
vs. Ambikapathi ... Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Kallakurichi made in I.A.No.341 of 2022 in O.S.No.16 of 2020 dated 20.12.2022.
For Petitioners : Mr.V.Gunasekar For Respondent : Mr.A.G.Prabhu Kumar
Page No.1/6
C.R.P.No.633 of 2023
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the defendants in the suit, against the order passed in I.A.No.341 of 2022 in O.S.No.16 of 2020 dated 20.12.2022 on the file of the III-Additional District Judge, Kallakurichi.
stated that:
“17. In the present case on hand, it is seen that the application has been filed on 05.09.2006. The petitioner has filed written statement as early as in the month of January 2004. There is no explanation for the delay in filing the application. Further, the petitioner seeks to compare the disputed documents with that of the signatures contained in the vakalat and the written statement which is impermissible in law. The trial court has also found that Ex.A6 is only a xeror copy and the application has been filed after the evidence of the plaintiff's side is over.
Page No.2/6
C.R.P.No.633 of 2023
Therefore, this Court finds that under those circumstances, the reasoning given by the Court below cannot be found fault with. Hence, the revision deserves to be dismissed. However, a mere delay alone cannot be a ground for dismissing the application. Therefore, while dismissing the revision, liberty is given to the petitioner to file a fresh application seeking to compare the disputed agreement with the original admitted document.”
Page No.3/6
C.R.P.No.633 of 2023
C.R.P.No.633 of 2023
passed by the Trial Court does not suffer from any infirmity or perversity.
13.08.2024
Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No mac
To
The III Additional District Judge, Kallakurichi
Page No.5/6
C.R.P.No.633 of 2023
R.KALAIMATHI, J. mac
C.R.P.No.633 of 2023 and C.M.P.No.4997 of 2023
13.08.2024
Page No.6/6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court was correct in dismissing the application for appointment of a commissioner to compare signatures on the disputed promissory note.
Whether the revision petitioners were justified in seeking to compare the disputed documents with the vakalat and written statement after the plaintiff's evidence was concluded.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
S.Chinnathai Vs. K.C.ChinnaduraiRelied on¶21
S.Chinnathai Vs. K.C.Chinnadurai reported in 2010 (1) MAD LW 646.
Vijaya
Ambikapathi
R.Kalaimathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
R.Kalaimathi
Parties & counsel
