Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 to set aside the trial Court's order dismissing an application to compare signatures of a pro-note. The High Court confirmed the trial Court's order, directing disposal of the suit within one year due to delay.
Confirmation of trial Court's order in I.A.No.793/2017; direction to dispose of the suit within one year.
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.
CRP(MD)No.299 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 27.11.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR
CRP(MD)No.299 of 2020 and CMP(MD)Nos.1714 of 2020 and 14127 of 2023
Selveswari ... Petitioner/Petitioner/Defendant
Vs
Ramasubramaniyan ... Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff
Prayer:
This Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to call for the records and set aside the order in I.A.No.793 of 2017 in O.S.No.309 of 2016 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputtur, dated 30.08.2019.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Muniyandi For Respondent : Mr.S.Venkatesh for Mr.A.Sivaji
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the order in I.A.No.793 of 2017 in O.S.No.309 of 2016 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputtur, dated 30.08.2019.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ___________ Page 1 of 4_
CRP(MD)No.299 of 2020
2.The petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.309 of 2016. The suit was filed for recovery of money. Pending suit, the petitioner/defendant filed I.A.No.793 of 2017 before the trial Court to send the signature to the handwriting expert to compare the signature of the petitioner along with the pro-note and to file a report. After conclusion of trial, the trial Court dismissed the said I.A.No.793 of 2017 without any valid reasons. Against which, the present petition is filed.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has never executed any pro-note in favour of the respondent and the signature found in the pro-note is differ. He further contends that the respondent has fabricated a false pro-note as if the petitioner had executed the same in favour of him.
4.The learned counsel for the respondent contends that the petitioner/defendant had not filed any contemporary documents to compare the signature, even if it is denied, a contemporary document ought to have been filed by the petitioner/defendant before the trial Court. He further contends that the trial Court has recorded that no document was filed by the defendant to send the same for comparison.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ___________ Page 2 of 4_
CRP(MD)No.299 of 2020
5.The only point for consideration is whether the petitioner had filed any contemporary documents to compare the signature. It is the case of the petitioner that she denies the existence of a promissory note or that the signature finds place in the promissory note, and it is a matter for trial to ascertain whether any contemporary document was filed for comparison by the petitioner.
6.In view of the same, the order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.793 of 2017 in O.S.No.309 of 2016 needs no interference and the same is hereby confirmed.
7.Since the suit is of the year 2016, the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputtur, is directed to dispose of the case in O.S.No.309 of 2016 within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8.With the above directions, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
27.11.2024
NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No sji
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ____________
Page 3 of 4
CRP(MD)No.299 of 2020
N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.
sji
To
The Principal Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputtur.
CRP(MD)No.299 of 2020
27.11.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ___________ Page 4 of 4_
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a Civil Revision Petition to set aside the trial Court's rejection of an application for forensic signature comparison should be allowed.
Whether the trial Court erred in dismissing the petitioner's application to file a pro-file for signature comparison without valid reasons.
Whether the petitioner failed to file necessary contemporary documents for signature comparison in a suit for recovery of money.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
SELVESWARI
RAMASUBRAMANIYAN
SENTHILKUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
