In a civil revision matter concerning a suit based on a promissory note, the Madurai Bench set aside the trial court's dismissal of challenges regarding material alterations and handwriting discrepancies, allowing the petitioner an opportunity to raise the second query during proceedings.
The civil revision petition was dismissed; no costs awarded.
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.(MD)No.3302 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Date of Reserved : 26/03/2024 Date of Pronounced : 11/06/2024
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN
C.R.P(MD)No.3302 of 2023
and
CMP(MD)No.17015 of 2023
S.Palvannan : Petitioner/Petitioner/ Petitioner/Defendant
Vs.
S.Rajendran : Respondent/Respondent/ Respondent/Plaintiff
PRAYER: -Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 17/11/2023 made in IA No. 1011 of 2023 in IA No.974 of 2019 in OS No.321 of 2015 on the file of the I Additional Sub Court, Madurai.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sankar
For Respondent : Mr.T.R.Subramanian
O R D E R
This civil revision petition is filed seeking an
order to set aside the fair and decreetal order, dated 17/11/2023 passed in IA No.1011 of 2023 in IA No.974 of 2019 in OS No.321 of 2015 by the I Additional Sub Court, Madurai.
1/5
C.R.P.(MD)No.3302 of 2023
The suit in OS No.321 of 2015 was filed by the respondent herein on the basis of the pro-note alleged to have been executed by the petitioner herein for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-.
3.The petitioner disputed the genuineness of the document stating that it suffers from material alteration. The document was referred to the expert by appointing a Commissioner. The Commissioner was appointed and took the original document to the expert. After receiving the report, he filed the expert report along with report. That was taken on file by the trial court.
4.Now the grievance of the petitioner is that in IA No.977 of 2019, he raised two points. By referring one, is that the material alteration in the figure portion Rs.10,000/- was altered to Rs.1,00,000/-. The second
point is that whether the hand writing in the body and the signature tallies with that of the writing in the top. But the expert has given only opinion in respect of the first query and not the second query. That was not properly considered by the trial court.
2/5
C.R.P.(MD)No.3302 of 2023
5.Entire copies of the records were called for from the trial court. A hand written order was passed by the trial court to the effect that the document be sent to the expert for finding out whether there is material alteration with reference to the figure.
6.Now, as mentioned above, the grievance of the
petitioner is that with regard to the contents of the writing, a query was raised. But that was not referred. The petitioner ought to have vigilant at the time of
passing the main order. The document was sent to the expert, as mentioned above, report was submitted, the trial commenced and posted for cross examination of the
plaintiff. The plaintiff stated to be aged about 64. Only at that time, this petition came to be filed. A specific issue has been framed with regard to the material alteration.
7.As mentioned above, the petitioner ought to have
been vigilant at the time of passing the order or at least at the time of commencement of the trial. It appears that he did not follow the order as well as the commissioner report properly. Now it is a belated attempt on his part.
3/5
C.R.P.(MD)No.3302 of 2023
8.Since specific issue is framed with regard to the
material alteration, when necessity arises, in the opinion of the court even to get the opinion on the second question, the petitioner may use the opportunity. Now it is too a premature stage to record a finding that whether the second question is relevant for deciding the issue.
9.So, I am of the considered view that the order of
the dismissal passed by the trial court requires no interference, of course with the above said liberty.
10.In the result, this civil revision is dismissed.
No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
11/06/2024
Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No er
To,
4/5
C.R.P.(MD)No.3302 of 2023
G.ILANGOVAN, J
er
C.R.P(MD)No.3302 of 2023
11/06/2024
5/5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court's order dismissing the filing should be set aside due to incomplete expert inquiry on handwriting and alterations.
Whether the revision petition is premature as the petitioner could have raised the issue at the trial stage.
S.Palvannan
S.Rajendran
G.ILANGOVAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
