Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 922 (MAD)

P. S. K. Subramaniam v. P. Sivakumar

2006-04-03

M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM

body2006
Judgment :- (Civil Revision Petition against the fair and decretal order dated 27.12.2004 passed in I.A.No.1181 of 2004 in O.S.No.767 of 2004 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Erode.) The petitioner is the plaintiff. He filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.95,100/- in O.S.No.767 of 2004 as against the defendant. 2. According to the defendant even in the written statement, he received only a sum of Rs.6,000/- and not Rs.60,000/- and there are material corrections in the promissory note with reference to the amount. 3. After the examination of P.W.1, an application in I.A.No.1181 of 2004 was filed by the defendant for sending the document to the handwriting expert to find out the material corrections relating to the figure and amount in writing. The same was ordered by the trial Court. Hence, this revision. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 5. On going through the records, it is clear that the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court to send the disputed cheque to the handwriting expert to find out the material corrections, in my opinion, is correct. However, as correctly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as referred to in the decision in Poorna Mariyal and Another (2002-1-M.L.J. 151), sending of original document to the expert is not desirable and the handwriting expert can be summoned to the Court for conducting tests for the purpose of finding out the material corrections. 6. It is observed by this Court in the decision in T.A.Narasimhan v. Narayana Chettiar and Another (1968 II M.L.J. 48), as follows:- “The practice of sending original documents in the custody of Court to handwriting experts is a highly objectional and a very bad procedure. Under no circumstances should a Court permit or allow to go out of its custody, as such an evil practice is attendant with various risks which are too obvious to be mentioned." 7. Under no circumstances should a Court permit or allow to go out of its custody, as such an evil practice is attendant with various risks which are too obvious to be mentioned." 7. Similarly, the observation in the case of Poorna Mariyal and Another (2002-1-M.L.J. 151) would reflect the same view, which is as follows:- "Though the opinion of the handwriting expert may not be a conclusive one, but at the same time, it will definitely help the Court to come to the conclusion for effective adjudication of the dispute and under such circumstances, the handwriting expert can be permitted to take the photographic copies of the documents in the presence of the officers of the Court and thereafter, he can give the opinion. If that is not possible, then the revision petitioners themselves can arrange to take photographic copies of the documents containing the admitted signatures as well as the disputed signatures of the first respondent in the Court in the presence of the Court Officials and sent those copies to the handwriting expert for the purpose of comparison and opinion." 8. Under those circumstances, while sustaining the order of the trial Court, taking the decision to test the disputed cheque with reference to material corrections by the handwriting expert, the other portion regarding the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner and sending the same through the Advocate Commissioner is to be set aside and accordingly, set aside. On the other hand, the trial Court can summon the handwriting expert to the Court and in the presence of the Court Officials, the tests to find out the material corrections can be conducted by the handwriting expert and he could give an opinion to the Court. 9. With this observation, the civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected C.M.P is closed.