Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2689 (MAD)

K. S. Raja v. V. Shanmugasundaram

2008-07-29

S.RAJESWARAN

body2008
Judgment :- This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the defendant to set aside the the order dated 14.03.2008 made in I.A.No.944 of 2006 in O.S.No.62 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore. 2. The defendant in O.S.No.62 of 2006 is the revision petitioner before this Court. The suit in O.S.No.62 of 2006 was filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of money on the basis of a pro-note dated 211. 2003. Written statement has been filed by the petitioner/defendant and the suit is being contested. Pending suit an application in I.A.No.944 of 2006 was filed by the petitioner/defendant to permit the hand writing expert Mr.Manomani Raj, for taking photographs of the signature in the disputed promissory note and for collection of admitted signature for obtaining expert opinion. The said application was resisted by the respondent/plaintiff by filing a counter. The trial Court by order dated 14.03.2008 dismissed that application. Aggrieved by the same, the above civil revision petition has been filed. 3. This Court on 01.07.2008 ordered notice and granted interim stay. The respondent/plaintiff has entered appearance through counsel. 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent and I have also gone through the documents filed in support of their submissions. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit is for recovery of money on the basis of a pro-note and the petitioner filed the written statement contending that the promissory note is a rank forgery and a fabricated document. Hence, he filed an application in I.A.No.944 of 2006 to send the disputed document to permit the hand writing expert Mr. Manonmani Raj for taking photographs of the signature in the disputed promissory note and for collection of admitted signatures for obtaining expert opinion. Though, the said application was resisted by the respondent/plaintiff, the trial Court by order dated 14.03.2008 on a thorough misconception of facts and law dismissed that application. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant, the reasoning given by the trial Court is wrong and cannot be sustained in law, warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant, the reasoning given by the trial Court is wrong and cannot be sustained in law, warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff submits that the Court below correctly considered the application filed by the petitioner/defendant and dismissed the same holding that the petitioner/defendant has not given any document with admitted signatures. If that be so, this application can not be maintained and the trial Court correctly dismissed the application warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff relied on a decision of this Court reported in 2006(4) CTC 850 in N. Chinnasamy Vs. P.S. Swaminathan passed by me, to reiterate that if the defendant filed petition disputing the signature in the pro-note without referring to any document containing admitted signature, the application has to be dismissed. 7. I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff. Admittedly, the petitioner/defendant filed an application in I.A.No.944 of 2006 seeking for direction to permit the hand writing expert Mr. Manonmani Raj,(now retired)who was working as Additional Director for taking photographs of the signature of the disputed promissory note. The trial Court held that there is no admitted document produced by the petitioner/defendant with admitted signatures, so as to send the same for verification and comparison. Therefore, in my considered view, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application, which does not warrant interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2008 is also dismissed. 9. However, in view of the fact that, the suit is of the year 2006, I direct the trial Court viz., I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.62 of 2006 on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.