Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1368 (MAD)

R. Anantharaman v. M. R. Rajesh

2010-03-30

M.JAICHANDREN

body2010
Judgment :- 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order, dated 24.9.2008, made in I.A.No.82 of 2008, in O.S.No.111 of 2007, on the file of the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No.1) Salem. 2. The petitioner had filed the suit in O.S.No.111 of 2007, before the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No.1), Salem, for a decree against the defendant, for a sum of Rs.5,51,102/- and the interest thereon, at the rate of 24% per annum, from the date of filing of the said suit and for costs. He had also filed an interlocutory application, in I.A.No.82 of 2008, praying that the trial Court may appoint an Advocate Commissioner to submit the suit promissory note, dated 14.1.2006, along with the admitted signature and thumb impression of the respondent to the handwriting expert to get his opinion. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent, in I.A.No.82 of 2008, stating that the respondent would have no objection for the Court, in allowing the interlocutory application, to obtain an expert opinion, as prayed for by the petitioner. However, it had been stated that the trial Court, while directing the expert to compare the admitted signature and thumb impression of the respondent, he may be further directed to compare the written portions of the suit promissory note with the admitted writings of the respondent, which may be obtained before the officer of the Court and also to find out the age of the ink used in the promissory note in question and to give an opinion thereon. 4. The trial Court had dismissed the interlocutory application stating that the age of the ink used in the promissory note cannot be determined by the expert, with scientific accuracy. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had stated that the prayer of the petitioner, in I.A.No.82 of 2008, is only for a direction to direct the handwriting expert to compare the signature and the thumb impression of the respondent found in the promissory note, with the signature found in the sale deed, dated 28.4.2005, bearing document No.712 of 2005, alleged to have been singed by the respondent. However, the trial Court had gone into the issue raised by the respondent, with regard to the age of the ink used in the promissory note and since, it had been found that the age of the ink cannot be scientifically predicted with precision, it had rejected the request of the petitioner. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, he had stated that he had no objection for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to get an expert opinion, as prayed for by the petitioner. However, the trial Court, on an erroneous basis, had dismissed the interlocutory application filed by the petitioner. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent had submitted that the trial Court had passed the impugned order, dated 24.9.2008, dismissing I.A.No.82 of 2008, since the age of the ink used in the promissory note, cannot be found with scientific precision. 7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned and in view of the fact that the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that there is no objection for the request of the petitioner being allowed, the order of the trial Court, dated 24.9.2008, made in I.A.No.82 of 2008, in O.S.No.111 of 2007, on the file of the Additional District Court,(Fast Track Court No.1) Salem, is set aside and the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No.1) Salem, is directed to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to submit the suit promissory note, dated 14.1.2006, along with the signature and thumb impression of the respondent, to an handwriting expert, to get his opinion thereon and to proceed with the matter further. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2009 is closed.