Chidambaram vs P.T. Ponnuswamy

S.M. Ali Mohamed, J.—This revision petitioner is preferred against the order of the learned District Munsif, (sic) dated 28.2.1995 passed in

I.A.No. 1542/1994 in O.S. No. 16/1992. dismissing the petitioner where was filed to summon an expert witness to (sic) pare the handwriting in

the suit promissory not namely, Ex. C.1. with the admitted signature the defendant. The plaintiff/ respondent instated the suit for recovery of a sum

of Rs. 12,500/- together with interest thereon (sic) on a promissory note. The defendant in his written statement has taken the stand that he has

signed a blank promissory note for an each money transaction ten years back and state that the plaintiff has filled up the blank promissory note and

it is not in the handwriting of the defendant. In order to prove that Ex. C1, promissor note is not in the handwriting of the defendant filed

I.A.No.1542/1994 in O.S.No. 16/1992 summon a handwriting expert to (sic) handwriting with the handwriting in (sic) promissory note. The

learned District Munsif Harur dismissed the petition on the ground that the Court itself can compare the handwriting the defendant with the

handwriting in FMC(sic) the instant case, I find no infirmity in the (sic) impugned order. The defendant himself has admitted his signature in Ex. C1

promissory note (sic) written statement but he has taken the stand the he gave a blank signed promissory note ten years back for earlier money

transactions. In this connection, Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, (Act 26 of 1881) reads us follows:-

Inchoate stamped instruments - Where one person signs and delivers to another a paper stamped in accordance with the law relating to negotiable

instruments then in force in (India), and either wholly blank or having written thereon an incomplete negotiable instrument, he thereby gives prima

facie authority to the holder thereof to make of complete, as the case may be, upon it a negotiable instrument, for any amount specified therein and

not exceeding the amount covered by the stamp, the person so signing shall be liable upon such instrument, in the capacity in which he signed the

same, to any holder in due course shall recover from the person delivering the instrument anything in excess of the amount intended by him to be

paidT951108.htmT951108.>

From a reading of the above Section, it is clear that Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is itself authority to the holder of inchoate

stamped and signed instrument to fill up the blanks and to negotiate the instrument. The instrument may be wholly blank or incomplete in particular

and in either case the holder has the authority to make or complete the instrument as a negotiable one. Therefore it is not necessary that the blanks

in Ex. C1 should be in the handwriting of the defendant. No useful purpose will be served by summoning the handwriting expert. The trial Judge

himself can compare the handwriting in Ex. C1 with the handwriting of the defendant. In view of the above, there is no infirmity in the impugned

order. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.